Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This was on CBS' 48 Hours over the weekend. After watching parts of the interrogation video and hearing the opinion of a new medical examiner I cannot believe that the District Attorney will NOT allow a new trial. That poor girl was questioned for 6-hours, during which she stated 37 or 39 times "I didn't do anything to that baby" but the detectives were finally able to "help" her come up with a confession. She looked like a zombie afterwards.
Heck, I don't even think a trial is necessary...this case has all the appearances of CYA's and no one is willing to take a hard look at the facts.
Anyone else see this? Your thoughts?
The only thing that "new" coroner came up with was evidence of brain "scarring" which might have pointed to an earlier injury--not exactly unusual when a child has a history of head-banging. You also conveniently failed to mention how she stood up and showed those detectives how she slammed that toddler on the floor. But she just wanted to go home. Which is exactly what happens after one demonstrates how one inflicted a mortal injury on a child.
I actually agree that I believe they should throw out the confession and grant her a new trial. I can't say if she did or didn't do it, but that it seems like she was slower than the average person and in that scenario, I bet her thinking made her believe, "If I say what I what they want me to say, they will finally let me leave, so I need to say what they want me to say."
I also am not convinced that what they showed her saying she did caused those injuries, but that is really something that a prosecutor would need to prove in a new trial.
Poor baby, but you can also believe poor girl as well. It really does seem like this was a case of using someone and working backwards to get it to fit what happened. I guess I can say a good amount of reasonable doubt exists.
I saw this, too.
Seemed to me the individuals questioning her were intent on pointing the finger at somebody, and didn't really care if it was the right person or not. I think they wore her down into making a false confession. And I also wondered why they didn't try to determine the source of the old injuries.
That was an oversimplification, but in the tape.... they come out and say what she did because what she said didn't fit what they needed... and the police go back to the evidence, say "that couldn't have happen - this had to have happened." and then she tells another story of what she did.... and then they look at the evidence again and said, "you had to have done this, too." She changed her story to whatever they said.
They even come out and say that she was in the bottom 10% of reading/verbal comprehension so it's really not a great leap to think the police could trick her into a confession. she probably doesn't understand the cause and effect of it all and honestly, everyone else has stated she was good with kids and that this particular kid banged his head and was at an age where he could tell his parents how he felt.
Seems more like a tragic accident due to previous injuries and the childcare center should be held liable for the death by not keeping a 1:1 ratio on him knowing he could bang his head at any moment, but that doesn't make the worker a murderer.
The only thing that "new" coroner came up with was evidence of brain "scarring" which might have pointed to an earlier injury--not exactly unusual when a child has a history of head-banging. You also conveniently failed to mention how she stood up and showed those detectives how she slammed that toddler on the floor. But she just wanted to go home. Which is exactly what happens after one demonstrates how one inflicted a mortal injury on a child.
Poor girl? Poor baby. Give me a break.
So, the child had previous brain injuries from head banging.......makes me wonder why that kid wasn't required to wear a helmet.
Should the child's doctors be held negligent? Maybe the parents? Did they tell the doctors how hard he was banging his head?
If this child banged his head hard enough to cause brain injuries, I don't find it too hard to believe he may have severely injured himself and caused his own death......or maybe another child or sibling pushed him down and he banged his head.
If the head banging didn't cause those old injuries, what did?
Are we to believe this girl was regularly causing brain injuries to this child while at daycare and no one noticed?.........or......maybe......this kid was being abused at home.
As far as the daycare worker showing detectives how she threw the baby to the floor, I am willing to bet the detectives demonstrated how it was done so she could be manipulated into following their lead, remember, we only saw snippets of a NINE hour interrogation.
IMO, the police made up their minds that she did it and proceeded to prove it, without even bothering to investigate any other scenarios that could have caused the death.
Mr. State Attorney General needs to look at this closely as he is possibly contributing to destroying the life of an innocent woman. The evidence & confession strongly suggest that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
