the next time we "know" a mom is guilty

[katilac]

let's remember this story. It has many of the elements that prompt people to say the parent must be guilty:

 

*the parents were in the midst of a divorce and custody battle

 

*the child died violently, with no witnesses

 

*law enforcement claims that the parent is not fully cooperating

 

The law enforcement comments are here and the mom is vindicated here.

 

Of course the police need to investigate those nearest and dearest to the victim, but in this case they also made assumptions and public implications, simply because they had no evidence pointing to anyone else and figured the mom 'must have' done it. The public is quick enough to 'convict' on flimsy evidence without the police helping them along. And if the police 'know' who did it, are they truly investigating?

 

To add to the heartbreak, she lost her other son as well, who was 8 at the time. He moved in with his dad after the 'murder,' and never again spoke to her. 25 years later, he is of course grown, and has been informed of his mom's innocence. I hope he reaches out to her.

[bettyandbob]

This happens to divorced fathers too. There was a case that went unolved for years (15?) until a young woman was killed in the same neighborhood and a connection was made. Meanwhile the dad lost his daughter and lived with this cloud. Who wants to employ some guy everyone thinks is a monster, what kind of friends can someone like that have?

[angela in ohio]

That's why you will always find me as the obnoxious one on those threads saying that I would seem guilty, too. I wouldn't be putting on a good show for the media, either, or talking to police for weeks on end until they found a word to twist and convict me.

[kalanamak]

This exam says dog attack, last exam didn't come back as dog attack. We have a tendency to to believe the one we want to. I not upset she has never been locked up, but I don't know that she has been cleared. Such a sad situation for all involved.

[angela in ohio]

This exam says dog attack, last exam didn't come back as dog attack. We have a tendency to to believe the one we want to. I not upset she has never been locked up, but I don't know that she has been cleared. Such a sad situation for all involved.

 

It does sound odd, but it's not just believing the one we want to. It's believing the more current one that uses better technology, according to the article.

[Danestress]

Very sad for this family. I can't even imagine. But while some people may have thought they "knew" who did it, the detectives just long term considered her the only real suspect. When they had better technology, they used it, and cleared her name. That is a long time to wait for resolution, though. How very sad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

let's remember this story. It has many of the elements that prompt people to say the parent must be guilty:

 

*the parents were in the midst of a divorce and custody battle

 

*the child died violently, with no witnesses

 

*law enforcement claims that the parent is not fully cooperating

 

The law enforcement comments are here and the mom is vindicated here.

 

Of course the police need to investigate those nearest and dearest to the victim, but in this case they also made assumptions and public implications, simply because they had no evidence pointing to anyone else and figured the mom 'must have' done it. The public is quick enough to 'convict' on flimsy evidence without the police helping them along. And if the police 'know' who did it, are they truly investigating?

 

To add to the heartbreak, she lost her other son as well, who was 8 at the time. He moved in with his dad after the 'murder,' and never again spoke to her. 25 years later, he is of course grown, and has been informed of his mom's innocence. I hope he reaches out to her.

[kalanamak]

It does sound odd, but it's not just believing the one we want to. It's believing the more current one that uses better technology, according to the article.

 

People still believe just what they want to. They may choose to believe the more current technology is more accurate. Some people think vacs are causing the epidemic of autism. Some people think it is a change in the definition, a fad, a new awareness, whatever. Look how little we change people's minds here. :)

 

I didn't witness this death. I don't know. It is one of the reasons I (ducking) oppose the death penalty. I don't think it deters, and I think we humans are too emotional to do use it safely. But I won't convince anywhere here of that, either. :):)

 

If I were her other son and I remember her raging, e.g., I'd stay away, too, dog bite expert or not.

[KatieJ]

I personally know a young girl who was strangled ( but lived and is fine) when their two dogs each grabbed a scarf end and were pulling on it as she walked. Fortunately her sister was with her and got help immediately.

 

That poor woman. 25 years is a long time to live with that.

[lionfamily1999]

When that stuff comes up my first thought is Duke Lacross Team.

 

Tried and found guilty.... in the media/court of public opinion.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

When that stuff comes up my first thought is Duke Lacross Team.

 

Tried and found guilty.... in the media/court of public opinion.

 

:confused: I read a lot about that case at the time and don't remember anything about their innocence?

[angela in ohio]

:confused: I read a lot about that case at the time and don't remember anything about their innocence?

 

See, there's the problem. Once you throw something out there, people don't forget it and sometimes don't hear (or remember) the outcome.

 

This case is often held up as one of the greatest examples of all time of wrongful prosecution.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

See, there's the problem. Once you throw something out there, people don't forget it and sometimes don't hear (or remember) the outcome.

 

This case is often held up as one of the greatest examples of all time of wrongful prosecution.

 

 

I read the timeline on it. I do remember them doing DNA testing, etc. I guess at the time I had in the back of my mind that this was a good example to teach my kids that when you are involved in a reprehensible act, people are more likely to think that you did something wrong or illegal.

[gardenmom5]

:confused: I read a lot about that case at the time and don't remember anything about their innocence?

 

seriously? nifong, the prosecutor, was DISbarred. the coach and team won a settlement against duke.

 

eta: the state attorney general who took over the case, including reviewing all material, had a press conference stating the miscarriage of justice and that the students were innocent. nifong had proceeded with his prosecution on one student DESPITE that student's atm card being used at a bank on the other side of town when the so-called (it never happened) r a p e was occurring.

 

eta: nifong's crime lab had charges brought against them for how they handled the dna evidence - they LIED about their findings.

Edited January 20, 2012 by gardenmom5

[Ibbygirl]

Oh how sad! What a beautiful little boy he was. :crying:

[Pink Fairy]

I read the timeline on it. I do remember them doing DNA testing, etc. I guess at the time I had in the back of my mind that this was a good example to teach my kids that when you are involved in a reprehensible act, people are more likely to think that you did something wrong or illegal.

 

That's what I thought, too. Not every time, but sometimes, a crime victim would not have been victimized if they hadn't been doing the wrong thing in the first place, i.e., your chances of being murdered are a lot higher if you are a drug dealer.

 

I think what you said applies to both sides in the Duke case.

[gardenmom5]

I think what you said applies to both sides in the Duke case.

 

I guess I'm confused how that applies in the duke case. the team would definitly have been better off if they'd never had strippers at their party, but NO CRIME was actually committed by the team - only the stripper making false accusations and a prosecutor who ran with it despite NO physical evidence. (they chose not to charge her becuase she was mentally unstable, and pregnant with her boyfriends child. last I heard of her, she was being criminally charged for something else.)

 

eta: I guess I should clarify - why should people jump on the team and assume them guilty over a "victim" stripper with a record of a previous false r a p e allegation? at they very least in this case, people should have stayed neutral to gather information because neither side was virtuous in their behavior.

Edited January 20, 2012 by gardenmom5

[Pink Fairy]

I didn't say they were guilty of a crime, but I do think they behaved reprehensibly. Hiring strippers and getting drunk fits my definition of reprehensible, and makes it easier to believe that they would do other reprehensible things. Yes, they were victimized and treated unjustly, but that can happen when you make yourself vulnerable by behaving badly.

[lionfamily1999]

I read the timeline on it. I do remember them doing DNA testing, etc. I guess at the time I had in the back of my mind that this was a good example to teach my kids that when you are involved in a reprehensible act, people are more likely to think that you did something wrong or illegal.

See and that is exactly what's wrong. You can see the other posts to see how it turned out, they did nothing illegal. Nothing. We can say that hiring strippers is wrong, but it's not illegal. We may think getting drunk is wrong, but it's not illegal. They did nothing illegal.

 

And if HALF the media circus had been dedicated to the charges being dropped and the prosecutor being investigated as were put into hanging the innocent Duke teammates then everyone would know that.

[cin]

See and that is exactly what's wrong. You can see the other posts to see how it turned out, they did nothing illegal. Nothing. We can say that hiring strippers is wrong, but it's not illegal. We may think getting drunk is wrong, but it's not illegal. They did nothing illegal.

 

And if HALF the media circus had been dedicated to the charges being dropped and the prosecutor being investigated as were put into hanging the innocent Duke teammates then everyone would know that.

 

You are correct, hiring strippers is not illegal. Getting drunk is not illegal. But, I think as a PP stated, avoiding situations that are questionable or borderline can prevent a whole heap of trouble. (For me, a group of college age boys, alcohol and stripper is a borderline situation!).

 

I was watching one of those court TV shows the other day and the judge said one of the things she has learned from years on the bench is if you're going to drink. don't drive. If you are having 1 drink. Don't drive. It just is something that can put doubt in other people's minds. If you wreck and you have alcohol on your breath, the doubt is raised.

 

Now, back to the original post. :D It is sad, but unfortunately true that a majority of child abuse/murder cases are perpetrated by someone who knows the victim. Parent, babysitter, uncle, grandmother. And even though I was not guilty, the first thing I would do is get a lawyer. To make sure that I didn't say something I shouldn't, and to make sure that MY rights were not trampled in an attempt to close up the case.

 

jmho