Indy Anna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,010
- Reaction score
- 3,453
<snip>
Patty wouldn't describe conditions inside the home, other injuries to the children, where the 3-year-old's body was found or how she died. He said police removed items from the property, but he declined to specify them.
Investigators believe the child had been dead for several days, and the teen and her baby remained in the house with the corpse until Wednesday, Patty said.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ouple-Death-Injury-Children-LA-298679921.html
----------------------------------
I can't help but wonder why the 17-year-old didn't call LE about the child who died while in her care, but LE doesn't say how the child died.
The article states that the youngest children were left with the teen. That's not exactly true. The children supposedly with the parents are said to range in age from 1 to 9 years old, so there is another child younger than the 3-year-old who died. So, why leave the 3-year-old with the teen (who was challenged enough caring for an infant) but take along the 1-year-old? Did the parents think that an infant and 1-year-old were too much for a teen to care for? If so, why not take the 3-year-old on the trip while leaving behind an 8- or 9-year-old, who are more independent than a toddler, if you can't take all of the children with you?
Possibilities I'm thinking of:
1.) The 3-year-old was already severely ill, maybe suffered abuse, and parents feared being charged (whether or not they were responsible) -- especially the dad because of his past.
2.) The 1-year-old was (gulp) already deceased when the family left. Could some of the items removed from the property have been found outside the home? Clothing, perhaps?
Patty wouldn't describe conditions inside the home, other injuries to the children, where the 3-year-old's body was found or how she died. He said police removed items from the property, but he declined to specify them.
Investigators believe the child had been dead for several days, and the teen and her baby remained in the house with the corpse until Wednesday, Patty said.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ouple-Death-Injury-Children-LA-298679921.html
----------------------------------
I can't help but wonder why the 17-year-old didn't call LE about the child who died while in her care, but LE doesn't say how the child died.
The article states that the youngest children were left with the teen. That's not exactly true. The children supposedly with the parents are said to range in age from 1 to 9 years old, so there is another child younger than the 3-year-old who died. So, why leave the 3-year-old with the teen (who was challenged enough caring for an infant) but take along the 1-year-old? Did the parents think that an infant and 1-year-old were too much for a teen to care for? If so, why not take the 3-year-old on the trip while leaving behind an 8- or 9-year-old, who are more independent than a toddler, if you can't take all of the children with you?
Possibilities I'm thinking of:
1.) The 3-year-old was already severely ill, maybe suffered abuse, and parents feared being charged (whether or not they were responsible) -- especially the dad because of his past.
2.) The 1-year-old was (gulp) already deceased when the family left. Could some of the items removed from the property have been found outside the home? Clothing, perhaps?