Mother microwaves 1 month old daughter

[Rooster]

DAYTON, Ohio - Investigators looked throughout China Arnold's home to find whatever fatally burned the woman's infant, finally identifying a kitchen appliance, a detective said. "That microwave was the murder weapon," detective Michael Galbraith testified Thursday at a hearing to determine if Arnold will stand trial on aggravated murder charges in the death of her month-old daughter, Paris Talley. Arnold, 26, has pleaded not guilty in Paris' death on Aug. 30, 2005. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Galbraith testified that Arnold told him during his initial questioning: "If I hadn't gotten so drunk, I guess my baby wouldn't have died." But under questioning from defense attorney Jon Paul Rion, Galbraith acknowledged that Arnold told him she did not know how the baby suffered the burns and that she could not recall having anything to do with it. High-heat internal injuries Prosecutors and police say the infant had high-heat internal injuries but no external burn marks, evidence that led the coroner to conclude the infant had been placed in a microwave. Galbraith said the infant's DNA was found in the home's microwave, though he acknowledged that evidence does not establish who put the baby inside. Rion has said that Arnold took the baby to the hospital after finding her unconscious at home. He said she told hospital officials she did not know what happened to the child. Rion also said the police's request for an arrest warrant contained inconsistent statements and omitted information. Rion has asked the court to bar any evidence that was seized, any observations made by police and any statements that may have been made by Arnold after her arrest, which he said violated his client's constitutional rights. Judge John Kessler ruled that prosecutors can use some of Arnold's statements at trial. He said he would decide later whether other statements and physical evidence would be admitted. Police: Mom microwaved month-old daughter - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

Of all the lame excuses, this must be the worst one I have heard :" If I wasnt drunk my baby would be alive"

Where do these ideas come from? Alcohol had nothing to do with it and trying to blame it on alcohol is ridiculous. She doesnt remember...my ass she doesnt. She just wants a way out. A way out of the responsiblity of motherhood and a way out of being convicted or murder.

[Ken Carman]

If true... sick, horrible...

But also grist for comedians with a sick sense of humor?

Perhaps it was a cold day and she just meant to hit "defrost?"

[Praxius]

Rion has asked the court to bar any evidence that was seized, any observations made by police and any statements that may have been made by Arnold after her arrest, which he said violated his client's constitutional rights.

Although similar to the one I posted a while back where the wife blames Satan for making her husband put their child in a Microwave (And he was trying to become a preacher of all things too) The above quote kinda pissed me off a bit.

How does collecting evidence for a crime scene after the crime was commited violate someone's constitutional rights? What kind of moronic mentality is being used on this? How the hell else does one build a case and collect evidence to build up against a named suspect?

To make sure she gets a fair trial? Come seriously ON!!! If it's all leaning towards her doing it with very little reasonable doubt.... then gee.... I dunno.... maybe the idiot did it?

And if futher evidence collected afterwards can stack up against her to find her guilty, then what is wrong with that? Isn't that how cold cases are solved usually? Isn't that how all cases are solved?

• Crime was committed
• Crime detected and reported
• Police arrive on the scene
• Secure he scene
• Begin collected and photographing evidence
• Find who is most connected to the evidence
• Drag their ass in and ask them questions
• If they screw up their story, then how do you go about forcing the police to no longer collect information and evidence? How the hell is that their fault? Why the hell should she be even given such a chance for the system to be jerked around and screwed over?

This is the same mentality as not allowing a high quality video recording of her actually doing it.... since they would have found the tape after the crime (You can't frigging collect interviews and evidence before the crime is commited, jeezz) or if it hit some legal snag where it couldn't be allowed.... that one solid piece of evidence that proves what happened in a crime..... would be useless and they would probably be found not guilty and get off free.....

What the hell kind of a system is that?

[nilan3000]

There is still not enough evidence to convince the court that she was the one who put the baby in the microwave. Lets wait for further evidence and see what happens.

[Deadeye]

Several years ago there was a joke going around about a lady who put her poodle in a microwave.

We laughed about that.

No one is laughing about his case. What a shame. And if true.....it's just beyond comprehension.

[Rooster]

IF there was other people in the home when this tragedy occured then the mother needs to be charged anyway. She is the mother of that child and the child relied upon the mother for safety and care.

The mother admitted to being drunk. Was there a party? Who was there? What kind of people were there? If someone else committed this...then the mother should have had more sense than to socialize with people like that or even allow her child to be around people like that.

Yes, hind sight is 20/20 and we cannot predict the future..but either way the mother is responsible. This was not an accident.

[Praxius]

But apparently you won't be seeing any futher evidence form what the report is saying.

[Not You Again]

Quote by: Rooster Yes, hind sight is 20/20 and we cannot predict the future..but either way the mother is responsible. This was not an accident.

So should she be charged with murder?

What if someone else committed the murder?

Then she will only be charged with neglect unfortunately, I do think she should be charged with murder though, she was this child's guardian, and this crime happened whilst the child was under "Her" watch.