No excuse: Mother microwaved baby

[Maddy McCall]

Police suspect that mother used microwave to kill child

Mother Arrested, Accused Of Killing Daughter

POSTED: 11:32 am EST November 28, 2006
UPDATED: 11:38 am EST November 28, 2006

DAYTON, Ohio -- Police in Dayton said they arrested a mother and charged her with aggravated murder in connection with her 3-week-old child's death more than a year ago.

Chyna Arnold, 26, was taken into custody on Monday. Police said they got some information within the last month that indicated that an appliance may have been used to severely burn the baby in August of 2005.

The Montgomery County Coroner’s Office said the child may have suffered fatal burns from inside a microwave oven.

Arnold is the only suspect in the case, police said.

http://www.whiotv.com/news/10413628/detail.html
************************************************

What a sadistic, inhuman thing to do to a baby. I hope she gets the worst possible sentence for what she did to a child who was dependent on her.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Oh. My. God!!!!!

[Quantess]

2. Horrendous! But, "no excuse"?

Insanity comes to mind. Probably defense will use insanity.

Edited to clarify, that her "excuse" would be only in they eyes of the court.

[geomon666]

5. I doubt that plea will work.

I mean what psychiatrist is going to go up there and describe the psychosis that makes a person microwave their own child?

[sandnsea]

9. See #7

Honestly. I know it's horrific, but I wish people would take 30 seconds to think about what could cause such a tragedy before spouting off that there can be 'no excuse'.

[geomon666]

11. I'm not saying there's no excuse.

You're probably right. It probably is Postpartum Psychosis, it's rare but it happens. I'm just saying, I don't think that plea is going to work. Just have a feeling.

[sandnsea]

13. It "worked" for Andrea Yates

An honest trial that presents the facts fairly will get an honest verdict. Trials usually move past emotional reactions. What I wish is that prosecutors would look at the facts and just plea these cases into longterm mental institutions instead of always wanting to exploit human suffering for their own political agendas.

[Hippo_Tron]

138. Agreed 100%

It makes no difference to me whether this woman spends the rest of her life in a mental institution or the rest of her life in prison. But you can bet that the prosecutor will fight insanity plea so that he can try to seek the death penalty. Meanwhile our dime goes to paying for the trial.

[Quantess]

10. maybe she was on drugs..?

I recall a story about someone on PCP who thought it would be a good idea to cook baby in a frying pan.

I'm just saying, what sane person could do something like that?

[shadowknows69]

14. There have been similar incidents of people doing things like this

on anti-depressants.

[pnwmom]

56. No psychiatrist would have a problem with that, if that were

the case.

For example, if a schizophrenic patient acted under the delusion that the baby wasn't a baby -- but a piece of meat to be cooked. Or that the microwave wasn't an oven but a crib.

[Marie26]

259. There's no indication of insanity here.

Plea is simply "not guilty", and the article doesn't mention a history of mental illness. So, no, there's no excuse.

[Binka]

3. Amen Maddy NO EXCUSE

How this woman hasn't choked to death on her own toenails is beyond me. Fecking IMBECILE!

[pnwmom]

19. What if the woman is schizophrenic and her sick mind

tricked her into thinking the baby was something else?

[OzarkDem]

41. She could have been delusional or hallucinating

She may have thought it would somehow protect or save the child.

BTW, psychiatrists and psychologist know how to discern if someone is trying to "fake" psychosis.
It would be difficult to imagine someone doing something like this intentionally.

[uppityperson]

102. Mental health SHOULD be available.

mental health care, physical and emotional and dental and all sorts of health care should be available and it is a really sad thing when they are not and something this bad happens. Some things I like about the USA, some really suck and health care is one of them. There should be no excuse, but there is often reasons why, including mental illness.

[Missy M]

4. How horrible. The pain and suffering that tiny baby must have gone....

through is unimaginable. How can anyone do something so evil to a little, innocent baby. Why do people like this go through with giving birth?

[Warpy]

6. How easy it is to condemn somebody without

asking one simple question, "WHY?"

This is not the act of a rational person. This is the sort of thing you'd see with postpartum psychosis.

Yes, she needs to be prevented from having more children. My guess is that if she gets appropriate treatment, she'll want to avoid it.

It's just going to be very hard to sort it out after a YEAR. What took them so long?

[sandnsea]

7. postpartum psychosis

Sounds likely.

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/postpartum_psychosis.html

[MissB]

116. That was my first thought.

Because as a mother, I simply cannot imagine.

[alittlelark]

232. The brain must be seroisly addled w/ nasty toxins

for that thought process to occur. Something was seriously WRONG w/ this woman.

NOT IN ANY WAY NORMAL.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. You know, at first I thought this was one for Snopes.

I have been hearing urban legends about babies being put into microwave ovens by caregivers since microwaves first came out (and that's a long time!) When I was a kid, these stories were connected with a pot smoking babysitter who thought the kid was a chicken or something on that order.

This still seems to be an urban legend to me, but I'll take your word for it that it happened. My next question would be, was the mother on drugs?

[Zhade]

257. Must have been a really, really big microwave.

Until I read more, I'm skeptical.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. With my 1st I had post partum neurosis and can easily understand

no matter how horrible, what she did.
I had visions of throwing my son out the window, boiling him in water...absolutely monstrous acts but knew where the line between fantasy and reality was. This was back in the time when the only thing the doctors talked about were "the baby blues". Luckily my hormones came back into balance, and it didn't return with the birth of my 2nd child.

[sandnsea]

16. Bless your heart

:hug: I think psychosis is the snap out of reality that turns those thoughts into action. Glad you're doing okay now! :)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. Thank you sandnsea for your huggie! I needed that as remembering what

went on 19 years ago isn't always so easy for me. And yes, I'm doing well. :hug: :hi:

[wicket]

114. Here's another one darlin'

:hug:

Glad you are well :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. And that's the difference between neurosis and psychosis.

Fortunate for you and yours to suffer the more common malady.

As evidenced by some of these comments, there are people who will never understand without going thru it themselves.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. You are so correct. I wouldn't have wished what I went through to anyone,

and I mean anyone on this planet. I still suffer a degree of guilt 19 years later. To think that those thoughts came from me, someone who literally wouldn't even hurt a fly.

[Cerridwen]

15. Another article with more information from both sides...

<snip>

"We believe that China's completely innocent of this, if it was an unnatural cause of death, we want to know who did it," said China Arnold's attorney Jon Paul Rion.

Defense attorney Jon Paul Rion says his client was horrified to hear details of her infant's death.

<snip>

"In the interim, the Dayton Police Department has conducted search warrants had laboratory tests done and done extensive investigation in order to bring us to this point," said Montgomery County Prosecutor Debra Armanini.

Prosecutors say it's been a long, complicated investigation, but they feel confident their findings are leading them in the right direction.

<snip>

more at link

[Quantess]

18. Thanks for the article.

Bizzarre. So, sounds like they don't have much evidence on the mother.

[Cerridwen]

26. Not sure.

The woman and her lawyer were surprised, though. I don't know if that means anything or not.

Guess we'll have to wait and see what case is presented. Nice I could find a bit about what both sides and the police department were saying. It has a different look to it that way.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Their responses are typical for a defendant and defense lawyer.

[Cerridwen]

31. Yeah, they are. There's more information available about the

overall situation so I wanted to post that.

It was also interesting to note the different titles given to the articles. Some used "mother microwaves baby" or some variation thereof and other titles were along the lines of "mother charged/arrested in baby's death".

[G Hawes]

186. Who else would you expect to speak on behalf of the accused?

When the massive power and resources of the state are unleashed upon an individual, and the individual is accused of a horrible, heinous, despicable crime, I'm glad that there are defense lawyers to speak on behalf of the accused.

Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty, after all, and the system, although not perfect, is among the best in the world. And it includes the presumption of innocence, remember?

Edit to fix typo.

[pnwmom]

17. Suppose, in her psychotic mind, she had no idea her baby was a baby?

I knew a young woman whose pregnancy and subsequent post-partum depression led to her first psychotic break and finally to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. She had an "episode" in my living room soon after we met. Believe me, it was scary. But -- even though I didn't know what the matter with her then -- I knew it wasn't her fault. It was obviously out of her control.

I don't think we should be judging the woman in this story without knowing the facts. In her mind, she might have thought she was microwaving a roast. Seriously. We don't know what she was thinking, do we?

[IdaBriggs]

23. Seriously, do you CARE what she was thinking?

At some point, it doesn't *matter* what the motivation is -- what matters are the actions.

You kill your child(ren) (and I'm not talking "accidental stuff" -- I'm talking KILLING), you are done. There is nothing, and I mean *NOTHING* that will ever redeem you. God may forgive you, but society has no business allowing you to further procreate, or further endanger the lives of others.

Either put her down like a rabid animal, or lock her up forever -- let the survivors make the decision.

Feel sorry for her if you want, but we're all better off with her dead.

Yes, that's a cold, practical way of looking at things, and you might not agree with it. I'm okay with that. I'm all for providing people in her situation with all of the "help and support" they need/require *BEFORE* things get so terrible, but once that line is crossed, *ITS OVER* and I'm done.

And by the way, the same goes for child molesters, as far as I am concerned.

[kiahzero]

24. You're wrong.

At some point, it doesn't *matter* what the motivation is -- what matters are the actions.

The mens rea always matters in the law.

[IdaBriggs]

47. My opinions are not law. They are my opinions.

I do not mourn dead child molesters -- I breathe a sigh of relief that my community is safer.

If I could make my wishes law, I would do so.

Murder your child, or any other persons child, and die. In these types of cases, I am very pro-capital punishment. I am not interested in excuses ("I was drunk" falls into the excuses category, in my opinion.) and I am comfortable with my beliefs.

I offered two choices -- lock them up forever, or kill them. Either way, keep them away from me and mine.

[pnwmom]

49. Then if , in a parking lot, you accidentally backed into a two year old,

(because you couldn't see him run just behind your car), you would deserve capital punishment. Because you had killed a child and it didn't matter whether you intended to or not.

[kiahzero]

71. Yup... dead is dead.

:eyes:

[IdaBriggs]

108. I was very clear on the difference between "accidental" and "on purpose"

which still makes sense to me. If you "accidentally" back over a two year old in a parking lot, that is a tragedy. If you do it "on purpose" then please see my original position as to being a child killer.

[geomon666]

25. Wow.

Not arguing with you, just saying...

[IdaBriggs]

48. I'm officially a cold hearted bitch when it comes to children's safety.

Sigh. I am currently struggling with how to handle two long time friends. The husband's brother sexually molested his thirteen year old stepdaughter several times, and spent TEN DAYS IN PRISON. Our friends have been sticking by him because they don't think it will ever happen again, especially to THEIR CHILDREN, and thus they bring "Uncle Dave" around their children very regularly. I am cynical, and much more experienced about these things than I really want to be. I keep remembering a friend I knew in high school who used to cut her arms because her grandfather molested her; she was so angry when she found out he'd done it to her mother, her aunts, and her other female cousins, AND NO ONE STOPPED HIM because everyone was playing "pretend" --

"Uncle Dave's" excuse was that he was depressed. I think we'd have all been better off if he'd done the decent thing, and blown his brains out before he laid one hand on that sweet girl....

:cry:

[pnwmom]

50. There's a difference between depression and psychosis.

If a person is delusional, they shouldn't be held responsible actions taken under their delusions -- unless the psychosis is caused by illicit drug use, in which case the person is responsible.

[IdaBriggs]

111. I do not agree with you. I understand why you are saying what

you are saying (I am personally familiar with a manic depressive who liked to proclaim himself the second coming of Christ when he was off his meds), but I believe the line becomes "crossed" when you KILL.

As I've said before, I also believe we should be providing appropriate "help/support" to the mentally ill BEFORE things get to that point. The fact we don't is a national tragedy.

These are my boundaries; you may have different ones. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

239. I agree with you about preventative care.

I know someone who is bipolar and the crime to me is that he can't get his meds because he doesn't have insurance so no psychiatrist will see him (they won't take cash). And the medicine he needs can't be prescribed by an internist. People like this are really caught in a nightmare.

I can't imagine why the government would rather pay for his periodic hospitalizations than to keep him on his medication.

[IdaBriggs]

255. Oooh! I know the answer to this one!

Its called SHORT SIGHTED REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES being in charge for too damn long! Grrr....

Honest to God, these people would rather save a nickel today, and spend a thousand next week, which has created more mental health disasters for the rest of us. I believe Ronald Reagan was the Head Asshole in Charge when this crap started. Best not to get me started....

Sigh.

[Ravenseye]

37. Do you consider mental illness as comparable to physical illness?

If a house was burning down and a person lay outside paralyzed from the neck down, just sitting there watching as their child burned alive inside the house, would you blame them for the child's death?

If in the same situation the person outside was not paralyzed physically, but had a mental illness which caused a temporary insanity to do nothing but watch their child die, would you hold them more complicit?

Mental illness is just that. It's a sickness. A quadriplegic is no more personally responsible than someone who suffers from some sort of psychosis.

Until more is known about this story, to just say that she either needs to be put down like an animal, or locked up forever, is stunning. If it was a result of postpartum psychosis, or some form of schitzophrenia she needs help and treatment, not to be put down like a dog.

[IdaBriggs]

46. I consider mental illness to be far more dangerous than a physical illness.

Partly because the mentally ill can look "normal" and thus be free to repeat their offenses, especially when ignorant, well meaning people turn a blind eye to their actions.

A person who cannot physically save someone due to paralysis (as in your example) is in no way the same as a person who, due to "mental problems" microwaves an infant, or rapes/tortures a child.

Your concern is for the patient. While many people might find that commendable, I find it negligent once the person has "crossed over" to homicidal behavior.

They can be sick. Its sad. It doesn't make them sacred. It makes them dangerous.

[kiahzero]

51. And you see nothing wrong with killing sick people. (n/t)

[IdaBriggs]

110. Yup. That's me -- kill all the people with the flu, dammit!

:sarcasm:

[Karenina]

73. It's all fine.

The *administration has a "test." All those dangerous and potentially dangerous folks they can identify will now bring profits to the prison industry.

Once someone has "crossed the line" FIRST they need to be immediately isolated from society-at-large, but is it not incumbent upon us to examine what happened in order to protect ourselves and others in danger of "going there" from themselves?

[laundry_queen]

127. You obviously have no experience with mental illness.

Or severe post-partum depression or psychosis or you wouldn't be spouting this crap.

Someone with mental illness often DOES NOT REALIZE THEY ARE EVEN ILL OR THAT WHAT THEY ARE THINKING IS NOT REALITY.

How on earth can they be held responsible for their actions while ill, how can they discern what their own actions even ARE, when they can't even discern whether they are ill or not?

Lock them up, protect others from their illness, get them intense treatment, whatever, but putting someone to death because of their actions while severely mentally ill is just barbaric.

We don't even know if this woman was mentally ill, and if she's not I hope she rots in jail, and hell. I'll wait until more facts come out first.

[IdaBriggs]

131. Uh, wrong about me not knowing people who are mentally ill.

Personal experience with more than one manic depressive, a whole bunch of other "issues" include depression, illegal drug addiction, alcoholism, etc., as well as three years on a suicide prevention/crisis line when I was younger/more naive. I've seen the range of disasters that go with these types of problems, and they are terrible.

That being said, I repeat myself ad nauseam (sp?):

Once you "cross over" into killing/raping/torturing, I'M DONE. I don't care if you don't know what you are doing, or not -- if KILLING is part of your psychosis (and you didn't keep it controlled, which as you undoubtedly know, happens a lot because a lot of the mentally ill like to go off their meds), then the rest of us are better off with you either locked up forever, or dead.

Its my opinion. You don't have to like it, and you can feel sorry for as many child killers as you want. My opinion (given the information we have about this case -- "Mother Nukes Three Week Old Baby") is just as valid as yours. You want an excuse for her. I don't give a shit. I want her locked up forever, or dead. (Again, basing my opinion on the facts presented in the original post.)

[laundry_queen]

143. Okay, maybe you 'know' people who have been mentally ill.

Probably the worst of the worst from what it sounds like.
It's obvious you haven't lived through it yourself though. I certainly hope you never experience post partum depression (or worse) as I have. It's so easy to think in absolutes when you've never 'walked a mile in someone's moccasins'. The lack of empathy for others is astounding. I happen to be empathetic to all, not just those who I judge to deserve it.

I wasn't trying to 'excuse' her. WTFever. As a pregnant woman, I'm sick to the point of vomiting even thinking about that poor baby. I will wait until all the facts are in however before I start calling for someone's head.

See, I just happen to think killing people is barbaric, no matter who does it.

And I didn't say set them free at the risk of others did I? No, I said lock them up for good so they can do no more harm - you must've decided not to read that part. And about 'mentally ill people are notorious for going off their meds'. WHAT IF (just say, for shits and giggles) someone, who has NO history of mental illness, no family history of mental illness, has never known anyone who was mentally ill, suddenly finds themselves mentally ill. How do they know? They aren't ON meds to go OFF them. Should they be locked up too once diagnosed? Y'know, in case they go off their meds?


Killing her however, makes you no better than her. Who decides whose life is more important? Both are victims. I will not be judge, jury and executioner for this woman.

[IdaBriggs]

254. Several of my favorite books have dealt with these particular

types of topics. (I'm pregnant with twins, by the way, with hyperemisis -- off topic, you can send me a PM if the vomiting gets too bad, and I'll be happy to share the story of Blessed Zofran with you!)

The real issue for you is that you don't want to be her judge, jury and executioner. Frankly, I don't want to, either. (This is why its easier to discuss as an abstract on a message board.) Unfortunately, at some point, SOMEBODY has to make a decision; our justice system is designed to make it a "public" one, with twelve people sharing the responsibility, with other people then carrying out the orders, etc. Shared guilt = shared responsibility.

I can make the decision with no emotion that we (society) are better off with child killers dead. I am not being asked to do anything about it. I can empathize with the pain of the victims, but at the same time, I also can step back, and see A CLEAR DUTY to protect other people.

If you kill your own child ON PURPOSE (microwaving, drowning -- not accidents, but holding them down in a bathtub, etc.), is there any redemption possible?

My answer is NO. Your God may forgive you, but I'm not interested. You will *NEVER* be right again, because even if you do "go sane" you are going to lose it forever with the guilt that a decent person would feel.

Now, we can spend tons of money on trying to "help you stay sane for the rest of your life" or we can now put those resources to work helping people BEFORE things get that bad (with you being a killer).

As I said, I've seen my share of bad; unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that we are simply better off with some of these people dead. In the case of "Uncle Dave" (who molested his thirteen year old step-daughter because "he was depressed") there isn't a damn thing you can say that would convince me the world wouldn't have been better off if he hadn't done the decent thing, and taken the time to blow his own brains out first. Barring that, it would have been nice if someone had taken an axe to him when they caught him in the act. Instead, he is now one of those people who "looks normal" and could be living on your street, getting "close" to your children as a cub scout leader, or a pee wee coach. Don't you feel safer now?

These stories are horrifying because we want to be safe, while the very idea that our minds could BETRAY US into acting in such a fashion is completely abhorrent.

I'm a very empathic, and compassionate person. Let me be clear: when the twins come, if I suddenly decide to toss them into the microwave, KILL ME! And, let me assure you of this -- if someone else decides to do something like that to them, the only question left is going to be how many pieces of their body you will have to clean up. (Yup, I'm feeling "overly protective mother tiger" at the moment.) You can be as sick as you want to be, but once you cross over into killer, there are no more excuses as far as I am concerned.

Your opinions may vary.

[Zhade]

258. Watch - she'll blame mental illness on marijuana soon, if she hasn't yet.

It's pretty fun to watch, because it's so laughably wrong.

[H2O Man]

263. Actually there

is no evidence that she has a mental illness, nor that she claims to have one. In fact, she denies playing any role in the baby's death.

I do appreciate what you are saying, however, in that people look to blame anyone or anything, rather than take responsibility for their actions.

It's important for DUers to keep in mind that: {1} those with major mental illnesses are far, far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than to commit one; {2} that the vast majority of mentally ill people are as capable of knowing right from wrong as anyone else; and {3} that there really aren't that many cases of people getting "off" for murder etc by attempting to use mental illness as a defense.

Many non-violent "crimes" do not reach court, if a person is experiencing symptoms of a psychotic illness and is better treated by hospitalization. And mental illness is often taken into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

One type of illness that is associated with violent crimes is paranoid schizophrenia. There is no evidence to think the accused is suffering from this illness, and plenty of reason to think that, if she microwaved her baby, that she is not. There would be more reason to consider that this type of cold, inhuman behavior, which is also likely evidence of trying to conceal the crime, falls into the psychopath/sociopath area. Just my opinion, of course.

[Hippo_Tron]

145. I think she needs to be locked up forever but in a mental hospital, not prison

She should be treated for her mental illness, but she has clearly demonstrated that her mental illness is a danger to those around her. And I say forever because I don't know how they could possibly demonstrate that they have treated her illness to the point that it is no longer a danger.

[kiahzero]

149. I'll agree that she needs to be locked up in a mental hospital if she did it

I don't know about the forever part, but that may well be the case.

[sandnsea]

38. She can be helped - you can't

That's what's really scary.

[Iris]

57. well-said. And I didn't even bother to open up and read the rest of the drivel.

[LoZoccolo]

62. I would think that punishment is supposed to change peoples' motivations, right?

As in, give them a motivation not to do something. So motivations would matter all the way.

[IdaBriggs]

109. As I said, for me, once you "on purpose murder a child", I don't

care what the hell your motivations are -- DONE NOW.

My mother and I were recently talking about the Andrea Yates situation. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the woman was mentally ill at the time of her actions. Unfortunately, she KILLED her five children. Once everything is done, blame assigned, etc., I think the decent thing for everybody involved is to remove her from suicide watch, and let her take care of business. There is no way whatsoever that she will *EVER* be "completely sane" ever again, no matter what kind of medication you put her on. SHE KILLED HER CHILDREN.

I have also informed my mother that if I lose it after the birth of my twins (20 weeks today!) and MICROWAVE MY BABIES she is to make sure that I *NEVER* come out of whatever mental breakdown I am then experiencing because living with myself after such a deed is not something I would *EVER* want to contemplate. My mother understood, and agreed.

[kiahzero]

120. So you recognize difference in moral culpability.

You just don't care about certain types. :shrug:

[lastliberalintexas]

124. By your definition or the law's?

Because in the law's eyes, it isn't murder "on purpose" if she was insane. The law recognizes that a legally insane individual can not hold the requisite mens rea (mental state) required to intentionally commit an offense.

Absent intent, an act is not usually a *crime*- it's merely an act.

[LibraLiz1973]

128. I agree with Ida about this 1 thing...

If I ever killed my children I would prefer to die than live life knowing what I did.
There is no way Andrea Yates can be normal- EVER. How about Susan Smith? She killed her 2 kids
because she wanted a boyfriend and it was hard to date with them around.

Microwaving your baby is a really sick thing to do. My question is this: had NO ONE noticed that she needed help?
Alot of times I think law enforcement needs to press charges against the families who knew but did nothing.
Rusty Yates is a prime example.

[IdaBriggs]

129. I agree. I think the "legal" term is criminally negligent..

But I got that from "Law & Order" so what do I know? :)

[FooFootheSnoo]

148. I totally agree with you

There is really no way to "save" this woman. If she really was insane when she did this, then once she's treated and "recovered", she'll be so tormented by what she's done, that she'll just go right back to being insane. If she wasn't insane, then she's totally evil and does not belong on this earth anymore. If I went crazy and did something like that, I'd just want a bullet in my head.

[H2O Man]

72. Yes, we do know that

is not the case. There is plenty of information being reported on the case that makes clear, without any question, that this is not possible.

[Lex]

20. Scary, tabloidy story.

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. So you're saying microwaving a baby isn't insane?

Sounds pretty insane to me.

[Maddy McCall]

29. Where did I say that?

You're reading an awful lot into "no excuse."

[kiahzero]

32. Legally speaking, insanity is an excuse.

So, by saying that there's "no excuse," it would be reasonable for someone to believe you were saying she wasn't legally insane.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Exactly.

I mean, it's not like she microwaved the baby for the insurance money, or because the baby was seeing another mother behind her back.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Town Jake]

60. And it would be "reasonable" to believe that you didn't read the OP very closely...

...and that you are now in the process of engaging in what's called "special pleading."

Please peddle it elsewhere. Thanks.

[pnwmom]

63. There's a more general discussion going on here

about an insanity defense, not the particulars related in the OP.

Some people apparently think that a person should be held responsible for his or her actions, even if the actions occurred in the midst of a full-blown psychotic break.

Are you one of those people?

[T Town Jake]

64. Yes, I am. Dead is dead - and at a certain point "why?" becomes irrelevant to decent people.

(n/t)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. "decent people"

:rofl:

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

68. It still matters to the law.

Apparently all prosecutors are indecent people. :shrug:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

74. Suppose you were backing your car up in a parking lot

and -- unbeknownst to you, a toddler suddenly ran behind your vehicle. You couldn't see him, you kept backing up, and you killed him.

Dead is dead. But should you be in prison?

[kiahzero]

75. I think he should get a medal for killing a baby.

After all, I'm a crazed baby-killing liberal!
:sarcasm:

Seriously though, intent matters... I find it hard to believe that anyone that's even roughly familiar with criminal law would claim that "dead is dead."

[pnwmom]

77. Me, neither. Or even someone's who just

has common sense.

[T Town Jake]

78. And I find it even harder to "believe" that anyone even remotely familiar...

...with a discussion board would be astonished to find, *gasp*, opinions offered on them that sometimes differed from one's own...

...(snicker)....

[kiahzero]

79. It's not the differing opinion that surprises me.

Would you care to explain the difference between manslaughter and murder for us, please? Remember: dead is dead.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. Are you seriously trying to draw an analogy between microwaved baby and car accident? n/t

[pnwmom]

107. In the context of that particular argument, yes.

I was responding to the "dead is dead" argument; that if someone dies because of someone else's actions, it doesn't matter what excuses there may be -- the killer is a criminal.

[madinmaryland]

27. Did you see Matcom's post about sticking a baby in the freezer?

Some guy stuck his baby into the freezer to reduce its fever. :wtf: is wrong with people. There are a lot of people that should not be allowed to have children.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. That's just crazy.

The bottom shelf of the fridge would have worked much better.

[AndyTiedye]

30. Call the Men in White Coats for This One

[pnwmom]

65. One more possibility

There are three older kids (I don't know the ages) who were with the baby the night before when they were all left with a sitter. What if, for example, a four year old did this?

[Burma Jones]

34. I'm a Dad, and I can honestly say that I can see how this could happen

The Mom would, of course, have to be insane, but people do kill their infants. A microwave, though, is particularly cruel.

I have held, now, three screaming infants. Unless you can somehow distance yourself from the screaming while still trying to comfort the child, you can be pushed over the edge, particularly if you're already at the brink......My new daughter is a little over three months old now and has passed through her rather severe colicky phase. My wife teaches Yoga, and I believe that has helped her. I just have an ability to desensitize myself to the wailing while still gently holding onto or laying next to, my daughter. Fortunately, she has come to the point where we can tell what she wants and she will stop wailing when we address her need.

This tragic (in the real sense of the word) incident illustrates only one of the reasons I support Choice.

[sandnsea]

40. My grandson was lactose intolerant

He still has bowel problems if he eats too much dairy. Anyway, we finally made the decision to put him on soy and that helped tremendously. The thing is, doctors KNOW lactose is the primary reason infants get colic - but they won't be supportive in doing anything constructive about it. :crazy: There were several nights when I spent the night so my daughter and sil could get some sleep. But I think postpartum psychosis is completely different, not the typical 'I'm gonna throw this baby out the window' tongue-in-cheek release of frustration.

Congratulations on your wee one!

[OzarkDem]

44. My son was also

Lactose intolerance makes them very colicky and is a huge stress for new parents. We spent many sleepless hours walking, rocking, driving him around. My husband promised to buy him a new Corvette for his 16th birthday if he would stop crying once. It took 4 or 5 months before we figured it out and put him on soy.

I can't imagine the stress on a single parent having to deal with a constantly crying infant for weeks or months on end.

[elehhhhna]

80. Leah was colicky. Hubs eardrum was punctured (unrelated incident) Problem solved!

He couldn't hear on that side for MONTHS. Held her there.

The eardrum eventually healed and Leah's 10.





The effect of massive doses of hormones produced by a woman's body during and after pregnancy should never be underestimated. Never. They affect every woman differently.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. massive hormones

The effect of massive doses of hormones produced by a woman's body during and after pregnancy should never be underestimated. Never. They affect every woman differently.

I struggle with how to say this.

There is a downside to the assertion that hormones make women, particularly new moms, not responsible for their actions. A custody court who is faced with two parents, one of whom is being assaulted with massive amounts of insanity-producing hormones, should have an easy decision.

If hormone-induced insanity is used as an excuse for a moms behavior after the crime, it seems only reasonable to use it as a legal excuse elsewhere.

They have a name for a person who is not legally responsible his/her actions - "child". Women have made a lot of progress in the last century by rejecting that status.

I have three kids. I don't buy the excuses proferred on her behalf. I think she's a grownup.

[elehhhhna]

113. I did not say hormones nullify responsibility. They can, however, in a

small number of cases, induce or exacerbate post-partum depression or psychosis.

Your opinions are your own but facts belong to everyone.

[BoneDaddy]

42. How horrible

What a tragedy.

[Iris]

43. Give me a break. Not another "bad mother story" - An Iraqui vet who COOKED his girlfriend

got all kinds of sympathy here - post traumatic stress and all that, but let a woman suffer from a mental disorder and all bets are off.

[elehhhhna]

82. Good point, Iris.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

93. Remember the condemnation heaped on Andrea Yates?

The woman who drowned all five of her sons in Texas was CLEARLY severely mentally ill yet the DA sought the death penalty and many people believed she should get executed. It's amazing to see how much sympathy her asshole fundie husband STILL gets when he goes on TV.

IMNSHO, he should have been the one charged with negligent homicide for refusing to get his wife adequate treatment and continuing to impregnate her despite her (probable) schizophrenia and (definite) post-partum psychosis.

[baby_mouse]

264. Nice one.

:thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. The question that immediately comes to my mind is

"Is there a jealous older sibling involved?" I mean one who is old enough to resent the new baby but not old enough to have a developed moral sense. I've seen jealous preschoolers who would have done bodily harm to new siblings if an adult hadn't restrained them.

[pnwmom]

53. Good question.

We had a case here where a baby was scalded in a sink, and the mother's defense was that the older toddler had done it -- not trying to hurt the baby, but trying to play with him. I think the case resulted in a hung jury the first time around, but I don't remember what happened after that.

[elehhhhna]

81. The Burke Ramsey theory.

That, or a jealous boyfriend.

[wisteria]

52. How could anyone do something so inhumane to a 3 week old infant. Sick,

sick, sick.

[Left Is Write]

54. This is horrifying. Horrifying and heartbreaking.

I read a lot of true crime and have studied many famous cases, but the one area of true crime I consistently avoid is crimes against children (I will never read "Small Sacrifices", for example). I can't take it.

My heart aches for that baby.

[pitohui]

55. i dunno, this sounds fairly fishy to me

if the mom did do this, she needs to pay the price

however i suspect whoever tipped the police to check and see if the baby was fried on the inside -- that person is the one who killed the baby, because how else would that person know about it if the baby looked fine on the outside

why the hell didn't they do an autopsy in the first place anyway, this case is a year old

it stinks like five day old fish on a sidewalk in my humble opinion

could always be poor reporting i suppose, i'm just going on what i read in this one article

[pnwmom]

59. I think you may be onto something.

CNN says they had a babysitter the night before. (My post #58). What if the babysitter knew that one of the kids had put the baby in the microwave? She might have been the one to make the report.

[DemReadingDU]

101. I believe there was an autopsy last year

The coroner had seen odd looking burns on the baby that he had not encountered before. He, and the police, did further investigations. That is why it has taken so long for an arrest.


cnn video
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/law/2006/11/28/sheridan.baby.microwaved.wdtn

[pnwmom]

184. The odd thing is that there were no burn marks on the outside.

It was inside that they saw damage that they attributed to heat. But they acknowledged really not having experience in this before -- it sounds like the microwave theory is an educated guess, from the article I read.

Everyone knows that a microwave oven cooks from the outside edges toward the inside. The inside is the last part to be cooked, not the first. So why is it that there were no marks on the outside -- only on the inside? Any juror who has used a microwave is going to wonder about this. I wonder how the prosecutor will explain it.

Also, why the prosecutor picked the mom as the suspect when there was also a father, a babysitter, and three older siblings involved.

[pnwmom]

58. CNN article: baby with babysitter, three older siblings

the night before it was found unconscious.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/28/baby.microwave.ap/

SNIP

The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause, Betz said.

Arnold's lawyer, Jon Paul Rion, said his client had nothing to do with her child's death and was stunned when investigators told her that a microwave might have been involved. . . .

The night before the baby was taken to the hospital, Arnold and the child's father went out for a short time and left Paris with a baby sitter, Rion said. The mother didn't sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious, Rion said.

Arnold has three other children.

SNIP

[elehhhhna]

84. Wasn't mama after all.

[DemReadingDU]

99. cnn video

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/law/2006/11/28/sheridan.baby.microwaved.wdtn

I am appalled that anyone could do this to her baby

[ecstatic]

70. drowning vs. microwaving

Both are horrible, heinous ways to murder another human being. One method takes more effort but the other method brings to mind grotesque imagery. Psychosis is the only defense for that one...

[pnwmom]

83. Another defense:

wrong person.

The mother took the baby to the hospital after finding the baby unconscious one morning. The previous evening, the mother and father had left the baby and three older siblings with a babysitter. That leaves several other possible suspects: the father, the babysitter, and three siblings.

[Cerridwen]

86. The first thing I thought of when you posted this upthread...

was, please, please, please don't let it be the case of one of the other kids playing around and...

This is bad all the way around. One baby dies and another child...???

I so hope...well, what, I hope one of the other children didn't do it that the dad or babysitter did or that the mom did or ???

No, there's no way to make this okay.

[kiahzero]

87. According to posters upthread

If one of the other children did it, they deserve to die too. After all, dead is dead.

:eyes:

[Cerridwen]

89. *sigh* Yeah, I saw that.

When pnwmom (sp?) first posted about the babysitter and other children, I wondered how the "death to all <whatevers>" were going to respond if it turns out it was one of the children playing or being curious or, even, being a "bad seed".

This is just ... nope, can't think of an adjective that works in this case; no matter who did it or why or how.

[kiahzero]

90. Tragic would seem to fit. (n/t)

[Cerridwen]

92. Thanks, that's a good start.....n/t

[eridani]

153. Utterly clueless is a possibility

When I was 4, I watched my 1 1/2 year old twin brothers attempt to eat red Christmas tree ornaments about the size of apples. I have a vague memory of the incident, mainly just sitting there and thinking "They aren't really going to eat those, are they?" I snapped out of it and ran to tell mom when I saw blood running out of their mouths. Mom made them eat soft bread and took them to the emergency room, and chewed me out for not making them stop. There are quite a few possible situations that four year olds just can't handle.

[pnwmom]

233. My four or five year old

took a goldfish out of the fishtank and brought it with him to watch TV. He watched it flop around for a while, then put it back in the tank. He was heartbroken when I found it dead the next day -- especially when he learned that he had killed it.

[pnwmom]

91. I don't understand the mentality.

Except black and white thinking is so much easier.

Of course, it's not really thinking . . . .

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

135. Ah, so you admit there are excuses, then.

Amazingly enough, infancy and insanity both fall under the the category of "excuse."

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

146. Name one thing that I've made up.

If you have a problem with my interpretation of your post, it means that your previous post (where you said that the only affirmative defense available was justification) was incorrect. A young child would certainly not be justified in putting their sibling in a microwave and killing the baby. However, they would likely not be convicted, because of their excuse (infancy). As I said, amazingly enough, the same arguments for an infancy excuse apply to an insane person, which is why the insanity defense persists.

If actually using what I'm learning in a discussion makes me unethical, then I'm unethical. :shrug:

[T Town Jake]

150. Ummmm...the entire header to that previous post - FOR STARTERS...

...indeed, your entire participation in this thread has been one long pastiche of dishonesty, logical fallacies, special pleadings, and other such tripe from the swampy back lot of those who have plenty of time on their hands, and access to a computer.

Documenting it is not necessary: any one genuinely interested can follow the course of the thread, even despite the deleted sub-threads necessitated by your deliberate ad hominens, and figure it out for themselves.

One last thing: bar associations take the honesty of their members quite seriously when it comes to their associations with the court system. I'd keep that in mind, were I serious about pursuing a career in the profession of Law.

Just a little free advice for ya, "Counselor"...(*snicker*)....

[kiahzero]

151. Either there are legal excuses or there aren't.

There clearly are, but if you argue that there aren't, that means then a young child that intentionally kills their sibling must be convicted of murder - they committed the crime and they weren't justified in doing so.

I'm sorry you don't like your words being used against you. It's called an argument by contradiction - assume that what you are arguing against is true, and then show how it leads to contradictions or absurdities.

I haven't lied about anything in this thread. You, on the other hand, have: you've claimed that I'm representing myself to be a lawyer, when I openly and honestly have admitted, here and elsewhere, that I am a first year law student.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

154. No one?

Let's start with the first post, conveniently titled "No excuse" and ending with, "I hope she gets the worst possible sentence for what she did to a child who was dependent on her." I can't imagine where anyone would ever get the idea that someone was saying that there was no excuse if she did in fact do it, or that we were talking about the law. Then we might move on to the posts suggesting that even if she was severely mentally ill (or perhaps because of that mental illness), she should be put to death - can't imagine where the law would come into that discussion.

The reason that there's a LEGAL excuse for the insane is because there is a MORAL excuse for the insane. That's the reason that the insanity defense persists - because criminal law is about moral culpability, and centuries of jurists have determined (and I agree) that it is impossible to hold an actor morally culpable if they did not have the capacity to recognize the immorality of their actions.

As I've said, I have no been dishonest in the slightest in this thread. Nor have I consistently ended my posts with derisive laughter, nor insinuated that anyone that disagrees with me is "indecent."

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

159. What a surprise, more personal attacks.

You said:
NO ONE in this thread has denied that there might well be LEGAL "excuses" for the actions of the accused in this case: this thread was NEVER about that - as you well know. It was about the MORAL outrage that attaches to such actions.

I responded:
Let's start with the first post, conveniently titled "No excuse" and ending with, "I hope she gets the worst possible sentence for what she did to a child who was dependent on her." I can't imagine where anyone would ever get the idea that someone was saying that there was no excuse if she did in fact do it, or that we were talking about the law. Then we might move on to the posts suggesting that even if she was severely mentally ill (or perhaps because of that mental illness), she should be put to death - can't imagine where the law would come into that discussion.

In other words, a rebuttal to your claim.

You're claiming that I'm deflecting, but I can't help but feel that there's some projection going on here: I don't think you've responded substantively to a single post of mine yet. Instead, you prefer to attack me personally: both implying that I was claiming myself to be a lawyer (which is a blatant lie, because I've represented myself not only in this thread but in other ones as a first year law student) and claiming that I'm not a "decent person" because I dared to point out that in our society, "why?" is not an immaterial question to ask about the moral culpability for someone's death, even if that someone happens to be a three-week-old child, among other continual rudeness throughout the thread.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

164. You keep accusing me of lying.

I have not lied once in this thread. I have not made any "outright fabrications" in this thread. I naturally disagree that my posts consist of either nonsense or fall into of the fallacy of special pleading.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

170. You keep saying I'm slow. Spell it out for me.

You think I'm stupid, so spell it out. Be specific. Explain to me, and everyone here, in one post, exactly how I've lied in this thread, apparently repeatedly.

[pnwmom]

174. kiahzero, you're not getting anywhere

because it's impossible to argue logically with this person. I'm going to hit the "ignore" button and I suggest you do, too. There are lots of other interesting people to talk to around here.

Good luck in law school!

[T Town Jake]

180. LOL...the last resort of the incapable:

...the almighty "ignore" button. :rofl:

You go right ahead...(*snicker*)....

[Dorian Gray]

256. You know...

I don't even agree with Kia's POV, and I believe that the legal jargon is frustrating when a horrific crime like this has been perpetrated, but at least he/she is responding sincerely while you derisively dismiss him/her.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

185. Oh, you can't support your "argument"?

Can't back up the claims against my character you've made time and again?

I'm shocked, really.

[pnwmom]

191. You might want to read up

on narcissistic personalities. You may run into a lot of them, I'm afraid, in your future law practice. It's just a waste of time dealing with these people unless you absolutely have to.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

197. Whatever.

You seem all to happy to make assertions but rather reluctant to support them. :shrug:

[T Town Jake]

199. Yeah..."whatever"

...my assertions are well supported by the posts in this thread - cry all you want.

Or to the extent you feel the need to.... :rofl:

[kiahzero]

202. Yet you can't make the argument.

Could that be because your assertions aren't supported at all?

[T Town Jake]

205. Once again, from the top: the "argument" has been made repeatedly...

...and it's ALL gone my way. Over and over. What possibly could you be talking about?

Now you're just posting nonsense for the sake of posting it. Don't you realize how silly that makes you look?

[kiahzero]

207. You haven't made your argument once.

You've just said, "Oh, it's in the posts above." I guess that's good enough for you, but I'm used to arguments having... you know... some support.

[T Town Jake]

208. Uh-huh. Sad the pathetic responses you've been reduced to in your red-faced...

...state of anger (current).

Do so hope you learn to distinguish between a logical fallacy and mere sputtering - someday.

Good luck with that.

[kiahzero]

211. Yes, yes, more personal attacks.

I'm done. You seem to prefer making baseless assertions to having a discussion.

[T Town Jake]

213. Yes, yes, more factual analysis that drives you crazy....

...sorry about THAT.

...(*snicker*)....

[greyl]

216. I have to tell you that

you're losing this debate in spectacular fashion.

[T Town Jake]

218. And I have to tell YOU that...

...your analysis, such as it is, doesn't mean a thing to me - in any fashion.

[greyl]

220. Your post isn't persuasive. nt

[T Town Jake]

222. Well, just trundle on along and *cluck, cluck* over it, and I bet you'll be alright...

...I'm sure you'll find something "persuasive," if you just point that gaping maw that is your "insight" in the right direction... (*snicker*)

[greyl]

225. I'm gonna go ahead and not take your advice. nt

[T Town Jake]

227. Is that so? Damn, I'll sure lose a lot of shut-eye over THAT...

...(*snicker*)....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

260. Ditto... not persuasive....

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReadTomPaine]

266. LOL!

:)

[T Town Jake]

172. Your OWN words convict you on this score - please retain a scrap of dignity...

...and quit pretending that what is obvious to any one who can read English in this thread is just a function of their "lying eyes."

For pity's sake, just maintain at least that basic level of intellectual self-respect, if nothing else.

[pnwmom]

171. Well said, kiahzero.

Clear and succinct. You will make a fine attorney in a couple of years.

[kiahzero]

173. Ironically, I have almost no interest in criminal law.

I've found the class to be interesting, but I'm looking forward to my substantive civil rights / civil liberties classes more (since that's what I'll hopefully be doing). Fortunately, those start next semester.

[pnwmom]

177. That's ambitious. Where can you do that sort of work?

The ACLU?

[kiahzero]

183. All sorts of places.

I'm hoping to work for a group like the ACLU, or perhaps Americans United for Separation of Church and State or Lambda Legal, or even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I know it's ambitious, but it's what brought me to law school in the first place. I went into undergrad planning on being a software engineer.

[pnwmom]

169. You haven't proved that you're anyone's intellectual better.

But I wonder why that's so important to you.

[T Town Jake]

181. Oh, but I didn't even have to TRY...it simply worked out that way.

As you well know - as one now *supposedly* on your "Ignore" list.

:rofl:

[kiahzero]

188. You've barely responded to that poster.

The only post of hers that you've responded to was your "Dead is dead" post.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

194. You're kidding, right?

Look at the thread. I admit that I missed your post 82 that was a "response" to one of her posts. But you've been responding mostly to my posts, not hers.

[T Town Jake]

198. "I admit that I missed" - Heh. Pretty common retroactive "admission"...

..when it comes to your posts.

...(*snicker*)....

[kiahzero]

201. Yet you don't counter the main point.

Whether you made one or two trivial responses to her posts, my point was, as I said: "You've barely responded to that poster."

[T Town Jake]

203. It's been "countered" alright - repeatedly...

...you just can't deal with the fact that you've been bested on the main point of the OP of this thread. So now you pick at petty asides that have little to do with the issue at hand...

Count me as *not* surprised.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

209. It's your premise, not mine.

I might use it to make a point (such as in post 196) but you're the one calling me dumb, uneducated, indecent, and silly.

[T Town Jake]

210. No, it's YOUR premise - you have posted "dumb, uneducated, indecent, and silly"...

...nonsense in lieu of genuine factual replies to debate throughout this thread. Do you seriously deny that?

The problem is not in the stars, to paraphrase the Bard, but in yourself.

The sooner your realize this, and start acting accordingly, the quicker others will start to take you seriously.

As it stands now, few do - and I don't blame them. Do you?

[kiahzero]

212. You're the only one attacking me.

So there's really no indication that anyone other than you is failing to take me seriously.

Good night.

[T Town Jake]

214. Ah, there is PLENTY of "indication" alright...

...truth be told - you're just not tuned in enough to receive it.

Most of my fellow DU'ers don't believe you're worth engaging, however, since you yourself are so easy to refute, and it truly hasn't been that hard.

But keep telling yourself that you're a modern American hero...and "taken seriously" somewhere...(*snicker*)....

[kiahzero]

215. *shrug*

Thought you should know that I'm putting you on ignore. You claim to be a smart guy... I'm sure you can figure out why. :eyes:

Oh, and by the way: congratulations on being the first person to annoy me enough to be put on my ignore list.

[T Town Jake]

217. Jeeze Louise...that just breaks my widdle heart...(*SNICKER*)....

...guess how much I fucking care about your use of the "Ignore" button? - and use calipers, if you must...

:rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

261. Please don't speak for anyone else but yourself...

you don't know what Most of your fellow DUers believe...

:eyes:

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

167. Caught where?

I haven't lied in this thread, so I don't see how I could be caught.

[T Town Jake]

182. All over the place, in post after post after post - as you well know.

(n/t)

[greyl]

219. I think your accusation is baseless.

Unless you can support such a statement, it may be a good idea to withhold it.

edit:spling

[T Town Jake]

223. My "accusation" is far, far from "baseless"...

...and I'm not going to "withhold" a bit of it.

But you go right ahead and keep offering advice I will duly ignore...

[greyl]

226. The burden of proof is yours. A mature genius should know that. nt

[T Town Jake]

228. No, "genius" it IS NOT - particularly within the context of this thread...

...one of the first rules of logic is that the answer to an assertion is, in and of itself, refutable by those same rules.

Anyone who has sat through a first-year freshman Logic course knows this, of course - you, obviously, do not.

Please try again.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

234. You are incorrect, due to hasty conclusion.

I edited my post because I fucked up and typed "The burden of proof of yours."

I do feel stupid, though. I'm getting the feeling that I'm just figuring out what many other DUers have known for a long time. I don't recall seeing any of your posts until tonight.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Town Jake]

241. That warm, gooey feeling that comes...

...from wearing out that alert button is no doubt satisfactory...

:rofl:

[T Town Jake]

242. Quite correct, due to simple logic...

...please do try to keep up.

[pnwmom]

88. You're right, there isn't.

It's a terrible tragedy no matter what happened.

[Karenina]

94. The woman, if it was indeed she

who committed the crime, is obviously deranged. Why is there such a pile-on, "SHE'S DERANGED! KILL HER!!!"

[kiahzero]

95. Don't you know, "dead is dead!"

Apparently centuries of criminal law is wrong. :shrug:

[T Town Jake]

96. Nice, them Strawmen you make up....

(n/t)

[kiahzero]

97. So "dead is dead" doesn't mean "dead is dead?"

Who knew? :shrug:

[Karenina]

98. Errraaa... a child is dead. Americans murdered

at LEAST 5 iraqi children today as SOP. And what are the circumstances of the death of this American child? Tragic? Preventable?

[SammyWinstonJack]

100. There are articles that I wish I had never read and this is one of them.

:wtf: Is there a microwave oven big enough to fit her? That would be a just punishment.

[pnwmom]

103. Don't you wonder why they decided to charge her

when there were five other possible suspects ? The father, the babysitter, and the three older siblings.

I think we should reserve judgment at this point. See how it plays out.

[Mr_Spock]

106. OH, NO!!

Oh, no :(

[Eurobabe]

112. Heinous, heinous act

I cannot believe someone would do such a thing. I am stunned.

[pnwmom]

115. Or just possibly, tragically,

the unsupervised act of one of the baby's young brothers.

[mtnester]

118. I am so with you on this...when we first heard this here in Ohio

(days before it broke nationally because it happened here), my first thought was "oh no, one of the kids did that while the babysitter was not looking"...maybe due to jealousy or curiosity or anger...who knows.

My hubby and I talked...when would anyone talk to a very young child about the harm that can come if you put a baby in the microwave? It would never occur to anyone to have this conversation with a 4,5,6,7,8,9 year old child...it just simply is not something you think about having to discuss. And what small child would know the consequences of this action? None...and even if you told them I do not know if the ability to perceive exists.

I am sticking with the I do not believe the mother did this...I think it was a horribly tragic accident, by one of the boys (brothers) and the mother can not simply bring herself to suggest it outloud, because of the sheer tragedy of it. She knows she did not do it, but how can she bring herself to suggest one of her own children did it? The whole situation is terribly awful and sad.

[pnwmom]

121. I never thought about that before but you're right.

My children were each several years apart -- the older one fully capable of lifting a baby, and of operating a microwave. But it never dawned on me to warn my older children not to put the baby in there.

My four or five year old took the goldfish out of the tank and carried it downstairs to watch TV with him . . . after a while he carried it back upstairs and put it back in the fish tank. He was broken hearted when I found it the next day and told him it was dead.

[Horse with no Name]

117. O.M.G.

I can't even imagine. A 3-week old?
Why not just give her up for adoption? Hell even leaving her in a trash can would have given her a better chance to live.

[izzybeans]

119. We can offer explanations but no excuses. Murder is murder lest we weaken

our stance toward murder. This is horrific. Whether this person gets prison or hospital time I'd be satisfied. In-patient treatment is very prison-like.

[T Town Jake]

132. Bingo. Which is all I've been trying to say anywhere in this thread.

:thumbsup:

[kiahzero]

134. When did manslaughter stop existing? (n/t)

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. Manslaughter implies lack of intent.

Did she intend to just warm him up a bit?

[kiahzero]

147. If she was insane, she couldn't have had criminal intent at all.

That's why the insanity defense exists.

[lumberjack_jeff]

158. Then why were you talking about manslaughter?

Not guilty by reason of insanity is, uh, not guilty.

Guilty of manslaughter is something else - negligently or accidentally killing someone. Unless the baby crawled into the microwave himself and she accidentally hit the "well done" button but couldn't hear his screams over the TV, it's hard to argue for manslaughter.

If postpartum psychosis is so widespread and so potentially lethal, there should be intervention to prevent it.

[kiahzero]

160. Because manslaughter exists because of a "weakening" of our stance towards murder.

That's why I brought it up.

[pnwmom]

163. "There should be intervention to prevent" postpartum psychosis.

I completely agree.

But this will only happen when people recognize that it is a real problem.

[kiahzero]

166. Seconded. (n/t)

[izzybeans]

252. That is a highly prejudicial statement. Mental disorders do not cause one to lose

ability to have intentions, desires, motivations. At the rare chance that this women is a schizophrenic, the likelihood that she experiences "positive" symptoms is very very low. And even then hallucinations rarely ever result in acts of violence. violence can not be reduced to acts of the "insane, deranged, mad, etc."

Someone intends to microwave a baby, someone may not intend to harm their baby via shaken baby syndrome.

[Dorian Gray]

262. Legally, I know that is true

But as a woman and a human being, I find this really and truly sad. For a mother to do this to a child is unfathomable to me, and I have to (in my very human way) judge her a monster. The legalities of it don't much matter to me right now. This story makes me physically ill.

[pnwmom]

162. If she was delusional -- if the baby wasn't a baby or the

microwave wasn't a microwave (in her mind) -- then she wasn't capable of forming intent.

I'm not saying that SHE was delusional. I don't know the facts of her case. But a person in the grip of a psychosis can be delusional, and that is why we have insanity pleas.

[T Town Jake]

142. More silly straw flying from that enormous STRAWMAN you have so...

...assidiously attempted to construct in this thread.

It hasn't worked so far, but keep trying. ...(*snicker*)....

[izzybeans]

251. Microwaving a baby = manslaughter?

This was neither "a heat of passion" crime nor, I am quite positive, did the baby provoke the mother. Microwaving your baby implies malice. Shaking your baby, perhaps does not.

It is a fallacy to assume that people with mental disorders do not have the ability to reason or premeditate their actions (if this is a case of post-partum depression or some other diagnosis). It is a highly stigmatizing proposition. Not every act of violence can be deemed an act of a "crazy person".

[jeanarrett]

122. The subject line says it all.

"No excuse: Mother microwaved baby."

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Nearly every post here talks about this mother as if she has already been tried and found guilty or supposes her mental state at the time of this 'alleged' crime.

She maintains her innocence. She is horrified by this. The police took a year to charge her and the evidence is not great. I saw her on television last night. She certainly seemed sincere to me in her grief and claims of innocence. Maybe she's just a good actress. The comments by the defense attorneys have elicited comments from posters here such as that's what you would expect defense attorneys to say, as if they are all a bunch of bottom feeders out to protect some filthy baby killers. Actually, that's their job. I worked for defense attorneys for years--they rarely make claims of innocence for their clients unless they believe it. Otherwise, they tend to keep their mouths shut. This would not be the first time the police fingered the most likely suspect because they couldn't find another and were wrong about it.

But the fact of the matter is this: In this country, at least, people are innocent until proven guilty.

[kiahzero]

123. Many of us were responding to the "No excuse" comment.

Even if she did do it, it's entirely likely that she has a legal excuse (in a very precise sense of the term).

[Casablanca]

189. But if she didn't do it, she might also have a legal excuse.

So jeanarrett's point is still well taken - why get wound up with arguments about how heinous an act is, or what should be done with the accused woman when you don't know for certain whether the act has been committed or not?

The answer is obviously that acknowledging the lack of evidence doesn't make for engaging online conversation. And all the while, an _implication_ is being built up around this woman, a woman that most likely none of us has anything more than nth-hand information about. It's a social dynamic that makes conservative talk radio hosts rich and well-known.

[pnwmom]

204. Good point, Casablanca.

[pnwmom]

125. I think the case against her is weak, at this point.

At least, what has come out in the media.

Besides the fact that there are other potential suspects, it took more than a year for the coroner's office to decide what they thought the cause of death was from -- and it's still uncertain that it was caused by a microwave oven at all.

If I were her attorney, I would ask the jury this question: why is it that the baby's body had no suggestion of being "cooked" on the outside? Why was all the damage (whatever it was) on the inside? Everyone knows that a microwave oven cooks from the outside, in -- the middle is the last part to be cooked, right?

I'm sorry if this grosses people out -- the subject is gruesome -- but these are the sorts of hard questions that will have to be asked.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law, not of public opinion

There is no principle that says that we the public have to assume she is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Only the jury has to do that. That is why they try as hard as possible to prevent the jury from being exposed to public opinion until they have reached a verdict.

[Casablanca]

179. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a moral principle also.

You're right in that there is no law that enforces a belief or opinion in innocence a priori, because of course beliefs and opinions can't be legislated. So it's a straw man argument you're making.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is also a moral principle because, without it, innocence can't be a personal attribute of an individual - it can only be something awarded by an external authority. In a "guilty until proven innocent" society, how would you know that the external authority isn't also guilty? Without a standard you can use to determine guilt or innocence (good or bad) apart from gossip and hearsay, there is no real morality.

It's also a practical principle, because without it, society becomes anarchic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. If She In Fact Did What They Said She Did, May She Eternally Rot In The Most Horrid Depths Of Hell,

[Blue_Roses]

130. OMG!

:wow: Sick. Sick. Sick. Poor child:cry:

[majorjohn]

136. Fuckin Insane!

Burn her to death!

[kiahzero]

137. One would tend to preclude the other. (n/t)

[Hippo_Tron]

141. I think life in prison or life in a mental institution is appropriate...

Depending on whether it is determined that she is actually insane or not. Of course the prosecutor will fight tooth and nail against the insanity plea so he can waste taxpayer money seeking the death penalty for his own political gain.

[pnwmom]

195. How about "depending on whether or not SHE even did it"?

Or does no one around here even believe in "innocent until proven guilty" anymore?

She found the baby unconscious in the morning and took it to the hospital. The previous night she and the baby's father had gone out and left the baby with a sitter and the baby's three brothers. They came home and the baby was asleep. That makes 5 other potential suspects.

[VelmaD]

155. I must admit I find it sad but not surprising how many people here...

are willing to assume this woman is guilty compared to the number who always show up to declare men are "innocent until proven guilty" any time a rape is discussed on DU.

[kiahzero]

156. I was a tad surprised too.

Then again, I'm "indecent" for thinking that it matters if she's insane or not. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

187. Hah! Very good point, VelmaD.

[U4ikLefty]

175. Maybe she didn't have the time to cook the kid in the oven??? n/t

[Ninja Jordan]

178. Mother's punishment? Death by microwave...

[pnwmom]

192. So has "innocent until proven guilty" gone out the window for you, too?

[greyl]

196. "Epilepsy Suspected in Microwave Oven-Baby Case" (different case)

This happened just up the road from me:

RICHMOND, Sept. 27—The 19-year-old mother of an infant found dead in a microwave oven in rural Virginia last week was charged today with first-degree murder.

The arrest signals that authorities are skeptical of the possibility that Elizabeth Renee Otte put her 1-month-old baby into the microwave because she was confused after an epileptic seizure, as friends say she told her family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/sept99/microwave.htm

[kiahzero]

200. I think I remember that, actually. (n/t)

[pnwmom]

221. And the outcome wouldn't satisfy the bloodthirsty among us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16478-2000Sep25?language=printer

Elizabeth Renee Otte, 20, entered a so-called Alford plea in New Kent Circuit Court. The plea means she is not admitting guilt, but rather she is acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict her.

SNIP

Commonwealth's Attorney C. Linwood Gregory, who has maintained that Otte intentionally killed her son in a jealous fit, said new medical evidence about Otte's epilepsy and expert opinions cast some doubt about Otte's responsibility for the baby's death. . . . "Looking at all of the evidence, I feel this was a good resolution," Gregory said after the hour-long hearing. "My argument to the jury would have been that she intentionally did this, and obviously this is a compromise. But I believe justice has been done."


SNIP

Adding strength to defense claims that Otte was debilitated by a seizure, a recent intense four-day evaluation of Otte's sleep patterns and seizures showed compelling results, Harris said. While she was closely monitored, Otte had a grand mal seizure, went into a trancelike state and was able to operate a tape recorder with some amount of precision--pressing the play and rewind buttons.

"She showed the ability to perform certain complex tasks," Gregory said, adding that she would have had to push at least four buttons to program the microwave oven. "That evidence and expert opinions that it was possible she could have done this without knowing what she was doing created uncertainty."

SNIP


AND THE SENTENCE:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2000/dec/14/nation_briefs277/

A New Kent woman was sentenced to five years in prison Wednesday for killing her month-old son in a microwave oven.

Elizabeth Renee Otte, 20, wept and clutched a photograph of the infant.

"I love my son. I still love my son and I will always love my son," she said. "I can honestly say I can't remember doing this if I did this."

Otte entered an Alford plea to involuntary manslaughter, meaning she did not admit guilt but acknowledged there was enough evidence to convict her in the 1999 death.

[greyl]

229. Huh, I didn't know how it turned out.

(been here 2 years)

I guess I'm pleased that Gregory responded to the new evidence which lessened the degree of Otte's culpability, but I doubt that a 5 year prison sentence was beneficial to Otto or society.

[pnwmom]

238. Not if she did this while under the effects of a seizure.

This is the kind of compromise that happens all the time, though, and it's better than some outcomes.

[selfdestructive]

224. poverty with a twist of mental illness

excuse? no. explanation? yes.

[pnwmom]

231. Assuming that the mother is actually guilty.

At this point, she is still legally innocent. Right?

It might not even be mental illness. What if a four year old brother did it? Just wondering . . . .

(I don't know how old they are, but the baby had three older brothers who were around when she was discovered unconscious in her bed. Plus a father and a babysitter had been with her the evening before -- which makes 5 potential suspects besides the mother.)

[selfdestructive]

236. sure okay

she's still legally innocent until she is tossed into a system where she cannot afford to defend herself, has no real will to do so - cause let's face it her baby ended up in the microwave one way or another...

if i am ever in a house where a baby, hell even a small animal ends up in microwave, and I DONT recognize mental illness somewhere with someone, before during or after said event im pulling my own plug...

sorry thats just how i roll.

[pnwmom]

237. Even if it was a very young child? It couldn't just be ignorance?

My four year old killed a goldfish by taking it out of the tank and bringing it with him to watch TV. I'd never told him not to. I can imagine someone's small child messing around with a baby and a microwave and not realizing what the consequences would be.

[selfdestructive]

240. no

sorry, but no.
the kid is no more likely to choose the microwave than the oven (which has been around for a century++) to warm the baby up if thats what youre implying??

there is no excuse here. the child had no business with access to such appliances.

what about the microwave sounds? or the baby screaming in the microwave during the horrifying process?
yeah sorry but no.
plain and simply - no.

[pnwmom]

243. The parents were out the night before and the

children were with a sitter. None of us know what kind of supervision those three boys had.

But small babies can scream for hours a day, due to nothing more than colic. And I would think that the oven would muffle the sound. Also, a microwave pops open with a push of a button. A conventional oven door is much heavier and harder to open.

And a microwave oven never feels hot inside. The cooking process is much more mysterious. There isn't the same sense of danger that high heat conveys.

[selfdestructive]

244. so we're talkin motor skills and brute strength here?

if a child is guilty, there should be no problem in extracting that information from them agreed?

[pnwmom]

247. Except that it happened more than a year ago. Children forget.

Especially, small children.

Also, no one really knows that the damage was caused by the microwave -- that was more of a diagnosis-by-process-of-elimination. The first coroner couldn't identify the cause of death, so he sent it on to someone else. The problem was that there was no sign of visible burns or damage on the outside.

But my question is -- since microwave ovens cook from the outside in, toward the middle -- how come there was no sign of damage on the outside (which should have been the first area to be heated)?

[selfdestructive]

249. ok so you are telling me

the coroner wasn't told they found the baby in the microwave?
they had to determine it??
im guilty of not reading up on this but it is just not necessary...

so mother was/wasn't present comes home to dead baby and doesn't resolve what EXACTLY happened to their dead baby AND ALSO doesn't relay that info to authorities?

you seem to bypass A LOT of important things that most people just assume as common sense so it makes your argument seem credible.

if i go out and come home and my baby is dead... NO ONE is going anywhere till i can retrace everyones actions who was in the vicinity.

[pnwmom]

253. No, no one found the baby in the microwave.

At least, that's not the story in the media. The mother and the father got home from their night out and the baby, who along with the three boys had been with a sitter, appeared to be asleep (which is plausible -- a high fever wouldn't immediately kill a person). The next morning the mother found the baby unconscious and took him or her to the emergency room.

This is also why it took the police so long to decide that she did it -- it was not immediately obvious how the baby died or who the suspect would be. Even the first coroner couldn't ascertain the cause of death.

[T Town Jake]

245. That has nothing to do with the OP of this topic...

...nothing. But please feel to pretend it does, somehow, somewhere if it makes you feel better - there is still an infant dead at the end of the day in this OP.

[selfdestructive]

246. then let me reiterate per the OP

"No excuse: Mother microwaved baby"

[pnwmom]

248. You're confusing me.

Are you convicting the mother before a trial? Even though the baby had been at home with a father, a babysitter, and three brothers?

[selfdestructive]

250. i'm convicting whoever was present

and let this happen. if an adult was present and this happened, then it falls on them and them alone.
like i said, i didn't follow this story.

[pinto]

267. Locking.

Moderator consensus.