Florida - Shaken Baby: Day in Court

You Gotta Be Kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry to be slow, but how does this link, though I good read, have anything to do with R's case? I would love to believe that she is getting the very best counsel!

"A public defender will just do a bare minimum, unless the public defender is convinced that the person is innocent. If the defender is convinced, the defender will do what he can because he/she doesn't want an innocent person to be punished on the lawyer's account." This article has everything to do with R's case. The PD started off doing the bare minimum and R was even offered a plea but she refused and still continues to claim her innocence. The PD may have seen something that convinced her that R was innocent so decided to go beyond the normal defense. This is the reason for the continuances. If not for this PD, the trial would have been done awhile ago and R would have been found guilty regardless of the evidence.

Mark In AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
"A public defender will just do a bare minimum, unless the public defender is convinced that the person is innocent. If the defender is convinced, the defender will do what he can because he/she doesn't want an innocent person to be punished on the lawyer's account." This article has everything to do with R's case. The PD started off doing the bare minimum and R was even offered a plea but she refused and still continues to claim her innocence. The PD may have seen something that convinced her that R was innocent so decided to go beyond the normal defense. This is the reason for the continuances. If not for this PD, the trial would have been done awhile ago and R would have been found guilty regardless of the evidence.

Thank you Mark! You always have such good information and insight :)

Motion for Continuance...????

Yes, and it is from the defense side. just want to remind those who like to make comments without checking facts: Rebecca continues to wait paitently in jail BY CHOICE as her PD continues to unveil even more facts in this case that will prove her innocence! If R wanted to speed things up she could have disagreed with her PD when this proposal was brought up (for continuance) however she agrees that finding out all the facts so that there is a complete and accurate picture of the truth at trial is most important....

Beth wrote:

Motion for Continuance...????

Patiently! Oh my! My fingers are typing like tree trunks today! Lol.:)

Its pretty quiet in here today!!! Where has everyone been?

OK, where did everyone go???

Stephanie wrote:

OK, where did everyone go???

taking Agape's advise???

I'm not sure where everyone else is, I've been super busy...

Happy Holiday's to everyone and PLEASE keep R in your thoughts and prayers not only every day but during the holidays as well...

be informed wrote:

Yes, and it is from the defense side. just want to remind those who like to make comments without checking facts: Rebecca continues to wait paitently in jail BY CHOICE as her PD continues to unveil even more facts in this case that will prove her innocence! If R wanted to speed things up she could have disagreed with her PD when this proposal was brought up (for continuance) however she agrees that finding out all the facts so that there is a complete and accurate picture of the truth at trial is most important....<quoted text>

I agree with you. This to me shows the charactor of R. I mean, come on. If she was guilty, would she really want to sit in jail and want people to find the truth? She would just take her chances in court.

While we're on the subject, I think someone mentioned this before, I'm not sure. If K KNEW Kaleb was this sick and didn't inform the doctors of this when he was admitted to the hospital for the alleged abuse, wouldn't that make her culpable in his disability now?

Ok, hit the button too soon.

I was wondering about my above statement because as a mother, you should know something isn't right, just like she stated to the media, that night. I don't have any proof, but IMO, I believe she knew. I believe she knew this when the media started running this story and I believe she enjoyed her 15 mins of fame. When the trial is over and it is proven that this was a medical condition and not abuse, I sure hope that some government agency will look into her acts of negligence towards Kalebs health care.

Again, the above statements are just my opinion, thoughts and feelings and are not based on facts.

R IS INNOCENT wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you. This to me shows the charactor of R. I mean, come on. If she was guilty, would she really want to sit in jail and want people to find the truth? She would just take her chances in court.
While we're on the subject, I think someone mentioned this before, I'm not sure. If K KNEW Kaleb was this sick and didn't inform the doctors of this when he was admitted to the hospital for the alleged abuse, wouldn't that make her culpable in his disability now?

I agree on both points!

Lol! Loved the disclaimer! ;-). Sad that you feel you have to put it on though. Guess that's what happens when we have a sue happy society! But yes again, I agree with you. I don't think K set out to lie, but once you give one version (baby was "perfectly healthy") it is hard, if not impossible to revise it for fear of becoming a suspect (even if you did nothing wrong). In my opinion a little lie snowballed and became huge, so much so that her many supporters and donators got drawn in. It is too late for her to admit that lie. She would have far too many consequences. Thing is, I don't understand how she can't wonder how long this can carry on for! After all, you can not hide the facts that lie within the medical files. I believe when this as well as other evidence is presented in court, many will be surprised and it will be apparent that R was accused far too quickly....JMO. ;-)

R IS INNOCENT wrote:

Ok, hit the button too soon.
I was wondering about my above statement because as a mother, you should know something isn't right, just like she stated to the media, that night. I don't have any proof, but IMO, I believe she knew. I believe she knew this when the media started running this story and I believe she enjoyed her 15 mins of fame. When the trial is over and it is proven that this was a medical condition and not abuse, I sure hope that some government agency will look into her acts of negligence towards Kalebs health care.
Again, the above statements are just my opinion, thoughts and feelings and are not based on facts.

Mark In AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
"... and R was even offered a plea but she refused ...

Can you tell me more about the plea? I didn't know she was offered one.

Today R's PD put in a motion to have a Frye hearing, which was granted over the objections of the State. It will take place on January 13th in front of a new judge. I think this is very good news for R, since it will put SBS itself on the stand, where, if the defense experts are worth their salt, they will shine their lights on the SBS Emperor's new clothes and all will be revealed.

be informed wrote:

Lol! Loved the disclaimer! ;-). Sad that you feel you have to put it on though. Guess that's what happens when we have a sue happy society! But yes again, I agree with you. I don't think K set out to lie, but once you give one version (baby was "perfectly healthy") it is hard, if not impossible to revise it for fear of becoming a suspect (even if you did nothing wrong). In my opinion a little lie snowballed and became huge, so much so that her many supporters and donators got drawn in. It is too late for her to admit that lie. She would have far too many consequences. Thing is, I don't understand how she can't wonder how long this can carry on for! After all, you can not hide the facts that lie within the medical files. I believe when this as well as other evidence is presented in court, many will be surprised and it will be apparent that R was accused far too quickly....JMO. ;-)<quoted text>

I agree...

You can't tell me that what ever lies within the medical files wasn't explained to her (K). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doctors don't just say one thing to your face and then put something totally different in the medical files. Even if they did, what I don't understand is that you would think the prosecution would also have checked those files. Why in blazes name didn't they look into things as well before this case went this far? Are they (the prosecution) really that intent on screwing up people's lives? I mean I can see filing charges against someone for suspected abuse, but then do your job and read the medical files and retract your charges and apologize, within a REASONABLE amount of time.

I hope if someone has the medical files for both sides, that they will fully look into things before this farce of a trial goes any further. Who knows, maybe the defense is actually doing THEIR job and checking things out. Maybe that's why there is another continuance on the records.

Agape wrote:

Today R's PD put in a motion to have a Frye hearing, which was granted over the objections of the State. It will take place on January 13th in front of a new judge. I think this is very good news for R, since it will put SBS itself on the stand, where, if the defense experts are worth their salt, they will shine their lights on the SBS Emperor's new clothes and all will be revealed.

What is a "Frye" hearing?

Hmmm..very odd that "K's" clan has been VERY quiet this week..?? Perhaps they are feeling a little uneasy?

R IS INNOCENT wrote:

<quoted text>
... maybe the defense is actually doing THEIR job and checking things out. Maybe that's why there is another continuance on the records.

The defense IS doing its job, it seems. I believe this continuance is to allow both sides to prepare for a Frye hearing.

This is taken from http://lawbravos.com/shakenbaby.php for the purpose of explaining what a Frye motion or hearing is.

[QUOTE who="http://lawbravos.com/shakenbaby.php" ;]The Shaken Baby Syndrome Theory is starting to come under legal attack challenging the theory’s validity. These attacks strike at the core of the theory, challenging its basis and arguing that Shaken Baby Syndrome has insufficient scientific basis to be admitted into evidence at trial. While the basis for admissibility of evidence varies from State to State, generally scientific or medical evidence must pass minimal standards for validity before testimony based upon those theories may be considered at trial.

The two generally utilized standards were initially set forth in the cases of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) and Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Pre-trial hearings to challenge the admissibility of such evidence are often described as a “Daubert” or “Frye” hearing, depending on the jurisdiction.

We feel confident that the Shaken Baby Syndrome Theory, even though it has been the subject of expert testimony for many years, lacks sufficient scientific validity and will eventually be discredited and barred from evidence.

The battle will be long and hard fought. The legal and medical systems are resistant to change, but our persistent belief in the power of truth and science convinces us that we will eventually prevail. Our only question is how many more lives will be affected before Shaken Baby Syndrome takes its rightful place in the dustbin of history.[/QUOTE]

Agape wrote:

<quoted text>
The defense IS doing its job, it seems. I believe this continuance is to allow both sides to prepare for a Frye hearing.
This is taken from http://lawbravos.com/shakenbaby.php for the purpose of explaining what a Frye motion or hearing is.
<quoted text>

Thank you!