Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?

Yes.

I just hope I'm missing something here.

Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.

That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.

 Chongara wrote:
Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.

That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.

It depends on the drug she allegedly used and what specifically they were screening her...

I have my doubts still about the veracity of the evidence still...

There's a whole lot of unanswered questions in this case. And a headline/forum title that are terrible at actually making a place where those questions can be answered.

 whembly wrote:
April fools?

This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.

 Chongara wrote:
Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.

That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.

The defense team had as much say as to the make up of the jury as did the prosecutorial team. You bring this type of a case to trial, the defense knows up front their client is going to be painted as a monster. They failed to induce a reasonable doubt into the jury. That is the way our system works.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

This kind of response is a direct result of failing to read the thread before responding to the OP.

Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
^ directly from the article...

Investigation turns up 0 drugs...reasonable to assume there was no drugs...no evidence of drugs means she isn't guilty of anything. This is gonna get appealed so hard with national attention.

Indiana again proving that it is the Georgia of the northeast.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
^ directly from the article...

Investigation turns up 0 drugs...reasonable to assume there was no drugs...no evidence of drugs means she isn't guilty of anything. As she should.

Indiana again proving that it is the Georgia of the northeast.

Well, one would assume that the court had access to the autopsy report on the foetus and that that report should answer the question whether it was a stillborn or an actual living baby.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

This kind of response is a direct result of failing to read the thread before responding to the OP.

Starting to think you didn't read the article. The article states.

Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.

The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

Neither is reading what actually happened.

Oh Snap!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.

I'm trying to get certain provisions added that permit them retroactively for special people that tick me off, for instance people who like cats.

Cats are the most noble creatures on earth!

You're on the list!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.

Asking what part of the sentence you were having difficulty with =/= defending the sentence.
So what part of the law was incorrectly applied? What do you feel about the law was unjust, or somehow not deserving of the punishment?
What sentence do you propose for someone who attempted to induce an abortion, gave birth to an infant three months premature, then discarded the infant in a dumpster to die?

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Among all the sources linked in this thread there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid information here. They didn't find any drugs in her system, but she sent some texts about trying to get those drugs. The fetus came out way or another and the defense says it was dead, the prosecution says alive. If actually wasn't a stillbirth it seems fair to say a crime happened here, regardless of what kicked off that birth process or how one feels about if doing those things should/shouldn't be a crime.

That said the story as presented doesn't paint a terribly convincing picture they put forward a rock-solid case proving it wasn't a stillbirth. Part of me is worried this conviction is more about the rather crass way the corpse was disposed of than anything else.

The defense team had as much say as to the make up of the jury as did the prosecutorial team. You bring this type of a case to trial, the defense knows up front their client is going to be painted as a monster. They failed to induce a reasonable doubt into the jury. That is the way our system works.

I don't think that's a healthy way to look at things. The most important word in your entire post is "Reasonable". They may have failed to make the jurors feel doubt, but nothing about a lack of doubt is inherently reasonable or unreasonable. If a case can be looked at just about everyone goes "Hey. There holes in this story big enough to drive a truck though", it may mean a jury's lack of doubt wasn't reasonable. "Reasonable" has to be an external standard otherwise convictions on the basis of the jury deciding "We don't like people who wear yellow shirts! They must be murderers! He wore a yellow shirt, this is slam dunk case!" would be valid.

Jurors are human and can make mistakes or just be outright biased, or even willfully unfair. The fact it's "The way our system works" means that... OK this conviction was definitely conducted in procedurally valid way. However, if the prosecution just went up did nothing but wave a bunch pictures of dead fetus until the people's emotions were stirred up they made decision with no basis in fact, something bad has happened. Justice hasn't happened, the truth hasn't won out. Call me an idealist but those are all things that when the process works correctly are actually done.


We weren't in the courtroom, we don't have the facts. Maybe they had really good physical evidence from corpse that made it improbable it was born anything but alive and lived long enough she could have called for medical attention. If so, then this is probably a good conviction. I certainly hope that's the case.

However, the narrative that has been presented to me makes it hard to feel a ton confidence in that. Especially knowing how likely people are to ignore facts with things involving children generally, never mind a case where one was potentially thrown in a dumpster.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.

The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.

I'm working on the assumption here that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as that is the criminal standard. Otherwise the case gets thrown out by the judge.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

This kind of response is a direct result of failing to read the thread before responding to the OP.

Starting to think you didn't read the article. The article states.

Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.

The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.

Nothing in my post indicated an opinion about the validity of the prosecution's claims. The prosecution isn't claiming that she had a miscarriage at all.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Asking what part of the sentence you were having difficulty with =/= defending the sentence.

You did not answer my question, I had to assume the answer.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What sentence do you propose for someone who attempted to induce an abortion, gave birth to an infant three months premature, then discarded the infant in a dumpster to die?

Access to more efficient abortion methods?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...

IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You did not answer my question, I had to assume the answer.

I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Access to more efficient abortion methods?

That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury.

In what way was the jury bigoted?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.

That is definitely what she should have used, though.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time.

And why so? Certainly not because she liked the taste of baby dumplings, she did not even put them in a fridge like a civilized person.

 Chongara wrote:


I don't think that's a healthy way to look at things. The most important word in your entire post is "Reasonable". They may have failed to make the jurors feel doubt, but nothing about a lack of doubt is inherently reasonable or unreasonable. If a case can be looked at just about everyone goes "Hey. There holes in this story big enough to drive a truck though", it may mean a jury's lack of doubt wasn't reasonable. "Reasonable" has to be an external standard otherwise convictions on the basis of the jury deciding "We don't like people who wear yellow shirts! They must be murderers! He wore a yellow shirt, this is slam dunk case!" would be valid.

Jurors are human and can make mistakes or just be outright biased, or even willfully unfair. The fact it's "The way our system works" means that... OK this conviction was definitely conducted in procedurally valid way. However, if the prosecution just went up did nothing but wave a bunch pictures of dead fetus until the people's emotions were stirred up they made decision with no basis in fact, something bad has happened. Justice hasn't happened, the truth hasn't won out. Call me an idealist but those are all things that when the process works correctly are actually done.


We weren't in the courtroom, we don't have the facts. Maybe they had really good physical evidence from corpse that made it improbable it was born anything but alive and lived long enough she could have called for medical attention. If so, then this is probably a good conviction. I certainly hope that's the case.

However, the narrative that has been presented to me makes it hard to feel a ton confidence in that. Especially knowing how likely people are to ignore facts with things involving children generally, never mind a case where one was potentially thrown in a dumpster.

And one of the most important parts of what you typed was " If a case can be looked at just about everyone goes "Hey. There holes in this story big enough to drive a truck though""

Clearly, the jurors chosen/accepted by both the defense and the prosecutor did not see holes you could drive a truck through in the case. In fact, they did not see holes big enough for reasonable doubt (because that IS the legal standard, like it or not) to pour through. You may get a juror or two that hate people in yellow shirts. Getting a whole jury to go with that isn't gonna happen if the defense is half way competent and the judge does his/her job correctly. So either you feel the system is completely broken, or (as I do) accept that the prosecutor presented a much more believable case than the defense, and that when the elements of the law were explained by the judge, the full jury debated those elements as they applied to what evidence had been presented and came up with their verdict.

I think you may have been more accurate to state " Hey. There holes in the reporting of this story big enough to drive a truck though".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You did not answer my question, I had to assume the answer.

I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Access to more efficient abortion methods?

That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional?

Women aren't required to go to doctors when pregnant...so that's irrelevant. People tell me to go to the doctor all the time when I'm sick or in pain and I tell them to bugger off.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.

The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.

Not without evidence. Without a smoking gun, perhaps, but when you are on record trying to buy poison to kill somebody and then three days later your intended victim turns up dead in a dumpster, that is evidence that you were responsible.

Off topic:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.

It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.

That is definitely what she should have used, though.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time.

And why so? Certainly not because she liked the taste of baby dumplings, she did not even put them in a fridge like a civilized person.

I think that this conversation has reached its natural conclusion.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You did not answer my question, I had to assume the answer.

I was not defending the sentence. I was trying to find out if there was something you were not understanding and attempting to help you understand better.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Access to more efficient abortion methods?

That is not a sentence for leaving a 3 month premature infant to die.
She was urged by her friend to go to the doctor three times. She refused each time. How would greater access to abortion have mitigated against someone refusing to engage with the a medical professional?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury.

In what way was the jury bigoted?

Typically when the prosecution makes a claim like "she used drugs, but we can't prove it" a jury will not convict. Typically when the prosecution fails to support their claims with evidence - juries don't convict. If the evidence is bad and there is still a conviction there is only one conclusion that can be drawn - the jury is bad.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Off topic:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.

It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.

I think they found it funny too.
And I am usually very lenient and friendly with them, so I am pretty sure if they had any real problem with it, they would have told me.
If they did not feel confident that they could tell me if I did something wrong, that is what I would like to fix.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.

The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.

Not without evidence. Without a smoking gun, perhaps, but when you are on record trying to buy poison to kill somebody and then three days later your intended victim turns up dead in a dumpster, that is evidence that you were responsible.

Off topic:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.

It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.

Without a toxicology confirmation that text message is worth a pile of poo.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury.

In what way was the jury bigoted?

Typically when the prosecution makes a claim like "she used drugs, but we can't prove it" a jury will not convict. Typically when the prosecution fails to support their claims with evidence - juries don't convict. If the evidence is bad and there is still a conviction there is only one conclusion that can be drawn - the jury is bad.

You said bigoted, not bad. How was the jury bigoted?

 Xenomancers wrote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...

IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.

Interesting how the article spends so much time on the float test, even after stating:

Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.

You would think they would have spent effort refuting the rest as well. It sounds like a lot more than float test results were presented.

I wonder what the defense expert witness presented to refute all of it.

 CptJake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...

IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.

Interesting how the article spends so much time on the float test, even after stating:

Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.

You would think they would have spent effort refuting the rest as well. It sounds like a lot more than float test results were presented.

I wonder what the defense expert witness presented to refute all of it.

It's a Slate article.

They present the full facts and both sides of an issue about as often as FoxNews or MSNBC.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Without a toxicology confirmation that text message is worth a pile of poo.

Dr. Prentice Jones, Jr., of the South Bend Medical Foundation, testified on Thursday, Jan. 29, that he couldn’t find any accepted method to test blood for the particular drugs Patel allegedly used,

Sometimes not having toxicology confirmation =/= drug not taken. Knowing that, the jury is going to give some weight to those text messages.