Maternal aggressor finds doughnuts more important than own child

[Japher]

They said on the news here, that she had been warned by concerned parents before not to leave her infant in the car unattended. Apparently, she had gone into her other daughters dance rehearsal in Mason and left the child in the car for a good amount of time.

IMO, this is routine child neglect.

Forgetting?

"Sorry officer, I didn't mean for my child to die. I just got to feed them for the las 5 days!"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does it even begin to strain the bounds of credulity for you to believe that a mother could go back to her SUV a total of 5 times (even getting in it to move it once) and miss something as large as a baby (I presume that those are harder to miss than one's keys or wallet.)?

When I get into my car i often dont look in the back. And like I said, I dont drive an SUV, which has a different physical layout.

To me it strains credulity that a parent wants to kill her toddler. My bayesian prior is that any given parent doesnt. If the lady had just taken out an insurance policy on the kid, or the kid was her step kid, or whatever, maybe Id qualify that. But the return to the car while troubling, doesnt change my opinion that airheadedness is the more likely explanation.

It also seems to me that as brilliant as you are, and as much info as the article contains, the DA probably had more info and more fully explored these issues.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher
They said on the news here, that she had been warned by concerned parents before not to leave her infant in the car unattended. Apparently, she had gone into her other daughters dance rehearsal in Mason and left the child in the car for a good amount of time.

IMO, this is routine child neglect.

Forgetting?

"Sorry officer, I didn't mean for my child to die. I just got to feed them for the las 5 days!"

children tend to remind you when they havent been fed.

[DinoDoc]

How do the past incidents of the mother doing this factor into your calculations?

[Arrian]

Having done it before and having been warned about it makes this even more awful. What an idiot.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It also seems to me that as brilliant as you are, and as much info as the article contains, the DA probably had more info and more fully explored these issues.

Or the DA is human and felt sorry for the mother.

I can trust that she was stupid and didn't see the kid and I can trust that she didn't want to kill her own toddler; these are pretty normal, human traits.

But I wouldn't immediately trust that a DA is impartial. Impartiality is a harder trait to come by, I think.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How do the past incidents of the mother doing this factor into your calculations?

they would seem to indicate even more strongly that she is an airhead, and militate somewhat against the theory that its deliberate.

How did her nefarious plot fail the first time? If the plot failed originally, why not try a different MO? Why not park where there would be fewer passersby, or use one of those baby shades to make it less likely the kid would be noticed?

Frankly the murder theory doesnt hold water.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Or the DA is human and felt sorry for the mother.

Why would he feel sorry if there was reason to think she was a murderer, which is what is being claimed? If she was not a murderer, but was criminally negligent, he probably thought that she has been punished by the death, and there is nothing to be gained by prosecuting for criminal negligence. Which I would tend to agree with, as I said earlier. If she WAS a murderer - not criminally negligent, but an intentional murderer as has been stated or implied in this thread, I would think the DA would have no sympathy, and would want to establish if there is any chance of that.

[DinoDoc]

I'm arguing that she should have been charged given her background and the 5 return trips to the car with at the very least child endangerment. Getting off with an Aw shucks ma'am especially in a case this horrific, seems like a miscarriage of justice. Given the amount of neglect shown in this case I also would have looked at taking the other child away from her.

[Proteus_MST]

Mothers sometimes do strange things.

In grnmany we had the case where a mother of 3 or 4 was divorced from her husband. When she finally had a new friend she moved to him, buz without her children.

The cildren stayed in her old apartment and she only paid rent and looked after hr children once a week, when she gave her oldes kid (who was 12) some money so he could buy something to eat for his brothers and sisters.
I.e. it was de facto the 12 year old kid who was responsible for the other kids of the family.
She didn´t outright kill her children, but with leaving everything to her 12 year oldd son she willingly took into acccount that it might happen that some of her kids might get killed because she never was there.

But as for the woman in this thread, i also don´t think she wanted to kill her kid. Either she is forgetful or she just doesn´t care enough for her kids.

[Lorizael]

I'm of the opinion that she was criminally negligent, that the DA knows this, and that the DA is probably choosing not to prosecute because he feels the mother has already gotten the worst possible punishment.

I don't like this outcome, however, because I think the rule of law needs to be observed.

That said, I don't know what good it does society (or her or her family) for her to be in jail. If this was an accident, she will clearly never be negligent again in this way. Who knows how it will affect the rest of her behavior.

Perhaps her other child should be taken away from her. That's another matter.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm arguing that she should have been charged given her background and the 5 return trips to the car with at the very least child endangerment. Getting off with an Aw shucks ma'am especially in a case this horrific, seems like a miscarriage of justice. Given the amount of neglect shown in this case I also would have looked at taking the other child away from her.

I have to agree with the last bit, specifically because of the prior behavior. She was doing something dangerous to her child. Other people pointed this out and warned her. She continued to do it. The child died as a result. She has another child...

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

IIUC what happens to the other child is up to the dept of social services and the family courts, its NOT up to the DA and the criminal justice system.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm arguing that she should have been charged given her background and the 5 return trips to the car with at the very least child endangerment. Getting off with an Aw shucks ma'am especially in a case this horrific, seems like a miscarriage of justice. Given the amount of neglect shown in this case I also would have looked at taking the other child away from her.

and Im arguing is that if it was an accident, criminal negligence and all, then ANY punishment will be meaningless to her, compared to what she will be going through every day for the rest of her life. As I said, I could see hoping for the death penalty if I was in her shoes.

You said maybe not, if she intentionally killed the kid. Its seems you have stepped back from the assertion that she did so.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lorizael
If this was an accident, she will clearly never be negligent again in this way. Who knows how it will affect the rest of her behavior.

What makes you say that? She didn't learn her lesson before she killed her baby despite warnings, why should now be different?