Baby shot in face because mother had no money to give robber

[draco664]

For me it is the fact that I have seen no tears at all. I see a lot scrunching up the face and the fact that in one she had all eye makeup on makes me wonder. I know that I would be crying constantly and would not be up, out of bed for ANY media or ANYBODY for that matter. She just seems too calm and matter of fact about watching her child shot in the face. It just seems unreal.

That attitude really fucking pisses me off.

If you have not heard of Lindy Chamberlain, go and ready her wiki page.

That was a woman who was convicted in the court of public opinion because she didn't cry on camera. An inquest into the death of her daughter (finding that a dingo was to blame) was overturned because of said opinion, and she was subsequently charged and found guilty of murder on the most fucking ludicrous circumstantial evidence - essentially that in 5-10 minutes she managed to change clothes, kill her baby, hide her so well she wasn't found by a massive search, change back, distract her son, cook his baked beans, and was lucky enough that no one noticed any blood on her in the hours following. Oh, and that her husband just decided to go along with it for the lulz.

The idea that how someone reacts on camera for 10 seconds is somehow relevant to facts of a case is fucking retarded.

[Kheldarson]

For me it is the fact that I have seen no tears at all. I see a lot scrunching up the face and the fact that in one she had all eye makeup on makes me wonder. I know that I would be crying constantly and would not be up, out of bed for ANY media or ANYBODY for that matter. She just seems too calm and matter of fact about watching her child shot in the face. It just seems unreal.

To put in into perspective, my mother was so freaked out when my little brother was in a minor car accident, that she took off at night and she has almost zero night vision. He wasn't even injured, but that is her baby boy and she had to go to him.

I almost want to say: "So?" That was your mom's response; that doesn't necessarily determine this lady's.

My mom's response when I called her about my car wreck? "Are you all right? Do I need to come down? No? Keep me updated please."

Different people do different things in different situations. Maybe this woman's just numb from shock and the attention?

But, to be honest, this whole incident just seems surreal. I mean, what the hell? Overkill much?

[linguist]

For me it is the fact that I have seen no tears at all. I see a lot scrunching up the face and the fact that in one she had all eye makeup on makes me wonder. I know that I would be crying constantly and would not be up, out of bed for ANY media or ANYBODY for that matter. She just seems too calm and matter of fact about watching her child shot in the face. It just seems unreal.

"

"seems unreal"=/="untrue"

You say you would be crying if this happened to you, but until it does you can't know that for sure. Everyone grieves differently, and witnessing something so horrible could put anyone in a state of shock and emotional numbness. When I lost my grandmother (who practically raised me and who I was closer to than almost anyone in the world), I didn't cry for weeks because I was just so numb at the shock of her death, and it wasn't even in violent circumstances.

Add to that the fact that you don't know how she's behaving in private. She may very well be crying constantly when she's alone, and putting on a controlled face in public. Some people are like that, especially if they grew up in a family in which public displays of emotion were discouraged.

[Sarah Valentine]

Everyone grieves differently, and witnessing something so horrible could put anyone in a state of shock and emotional numbness. When I lost my grandmother (who practically raised me and who I was closer to than almost anyone in the world), I didn't cry for weeks because I was just so numb at the shock of her death, and it wasn't even in violent circumstances.

I'm the same way, everytime someone in the family died I didn't cry exept maybe a couple tears at the wake and the funeral. It didn't seem real it never used to hit me until later that I'd never see them again, it was usually little things that set me off and I realized they were really gone. I can understand no tears meaning guilt in some people's minds, but for a few of us it's not true.

[Aethian]

I was usually weepy and apathetic and then I baked and cooked...it was bad when I would run out of a base ingredient. Cause then I would cry and get majorly depressed.

[KitterCat]

For me it is the fact that I have seen no tears at all. I see a lot scrunching up the face and the fact that in one she had all eye makeup on makes me wonder. I know that I would be crying constantly and would not be up, out of bed for ANY media or ANYBODY for that matter. She just seems too calm and matter of fact about watching her child shot in the face. It just seems unreal.

To put in into perspective, my mother was so freaked out when my little brother was in a minor car accident, that she took off at night and she has almost zero night vision. He wasn't even injured, but that is her baby boy and she had to go to him.

Some people simply do not cry in front of others. I was pretty much taught as a small child that crying was the same as whining which was not allowed. Showing anything other than happiness was not allowed. So when I cried as a child I tried to keep it to my room where no one could see. As an adult I do the same thing. Most of my friends have only seen me cry once - if that.

Heck even when my fuzzy face cat died, I was hysterical but only when people weren’t around. As soon as one of my friends showed up to consol me I stopped crying. She could still tell that I was upset and had heard me over the phone hysterical but I just would not cry in front of her. Try to remember just because you react one way doesn’t mean everyone acts the same. For this mother it probably is surreal. She's just not reacting to it like you would. She could just be hopping that this is all a bad dream and any moment she'll wake up.

[Panacea]

6 people have been arrested in this case at this point, one of them a county official.

They've arrested the two boys, the alleged shooter's mother, sister, aunt, and this county official. They believe they found the gun used in the shooting, but ballistic tests haven't come back yet. They also think the killing might've been gang related.

The county official is a cousin of the suspects who advised the family of said suspects not to talk to the police. That's called obstruction of justice, and it's a crime.

It's baffling from over here that people are allowed to speak out like that to the press before any trial even starts. Jurors over here have to be as unaware of the facts as possible, or so I remember.

Rapscallion

Freedom of Speech. You have to have a court order to gag speech, meaning you have to show an interest of justice trumps the 1st Amendment. Happens a lot actually, but not as often as you'd think.

Usually, defense lawyers will try for a change of venue if the media coverage is that bad.

Also, I'm not sure about this, but in order to indict someone for a crime, there needs to be some sufficient evidence for it to even be brought to trial. This paper work, AFIAK, is public, and can contain some important information about the prosecution's case.

Grand juries aren't used in every case. If the evidence is strong, a preliminary evidentiary hearing is enough to bring a case to trial. Grand juries are often used by prosecutors not sure of their evidence, who need more discovery to bring a case. Grand jury deliberations are secret.

The crying thing can be awfully misleading, though. Not everybody reacts the same way. And, again, there aren't any plausible alternative suggestions.

Agreed. Everyone grieves differently. Many cases are brought based on someone's decision that someone didn't grieve in the "right way," and a lot of mistakes get made that way. It's a sucky way to decide guilt or innocence.

[draco664]

The county official is a cousin of the suspects who advised the family of said suspects not to talk to the police. That's called obstruction of justice, and it's a crime.

Um, no. That is the sort of advice every lawyer gives a client. Obstruction of justice is something different depending on jurisdiction, but advising someone to exercise their 5th amendment rights? No.

[Ginger Tea]

And as we found in the UK last year, crying your eyes out on daily press confrences after your house was set ablaize resulting in the death of 4 or 6 children only to be later found guilty of said arson and resulting (possibly premeditated murder?) deaths.

[Panacea]

Um, no. That is the sort of advice every lawyer gives a client. Obstruction of justice is something different depending on jurisdiction, but advising someone to exercise their 5th amendment rights? No.

The mother and sister of one of the accused weren't originally accused of a crime themselves, so the 5th Amendment doesn't apply. The county official was telling the family to close ranks during an official investigation . . . not the sort of thing that convinces law enforcement of anyone's innocence.

Whether the charges are legit are not remains to be seen as the legal system plays out.

[HYHYBT]

And as we found in the UK last year, crying your eyes out on daily press confrences after your house was set ablaize resulting in the death of 4 or 6 children only to be later found guilty of said arson and resulting (possibly premeditated murder?) deaths.

Right. If anything, I'd be more suspicious of someone who seemed to be overdoing it rather than too calm; people know the *expected* reaction and will try to provide it if they're faking. Though of course that's not reliable either.

[draco664]

The mother and sister of one of the accused weren't originally accused of a crime themselves, so the 5th Amendment doesn't apply.

Nope.

The 5th amendment makes no distinction between someone being charged, questioned or merely interviewed - merely that you cannot be compelled to witness against yourself.

[Panacea]

Nope.

The 5th amendment makes no distinction between someone being charged, questioned or merely interviewed - merely that you cannot be compelled to witness against yourself.

Exactly. If the questions are being asked about someone else, the 5th Amendment does not apply since you are not being asked to incriminate yourself.

[draco664]

Exactly. If the questions are being asked about someone else, the 5th Amendment does not apply since you are not being asked to incriminate yourself.

It certainly does. Just because any questions are about someone else does not mean the answers may not incriminate you.

Any lawyer will tell you, do not answer police questions without legal counsel present. Because they know the game's rules and you don't.