GUILTY OH - Annabelle Richardson, newborn, found in grave , 7 May 2017 *GUILTY OF ABUSE OF CORPSE ONLY* *resentencing 2022* #4

[BeckyF]

1. "They had no proof at all. (...). Their ( accusations at trial that Skylar burned her baby) were based on a a false premise, and they knew it. They had no proof at all." Juror.

The question is whether the State acted ethically in taking her all the way to trial, and in trying the case they did AFTER they knew the core of their case was compromised, not whether they had probable cause when they indicted, however weak their case against her most certainly was, even then.

I'm not an attorney. Other attorneys disagree with your opinion. It isn't necessary to be an attorney to have an opinion about whether or not the State acted ethically in accusing Skylar of burning her baby all the way through trial.

The opinions that mattered most were those of the jurors. At least one of them believed the State lied to the jury. The fact they reached verdicts as quickly as they did, and that they made a point of telling the judge in writing they did not believe Skylar caused harm to her baby, hints at what the rest of the jury thought of the State's case.

Agree. You don't have to be an attorney to have an opinion on the ethics of the State's actions. IMO it was overcharged. I wonder if the State felt community pressure to charge SR with the max which IMO is a political motive.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes! I wish the jurors could have had the transcripts of both interrogations, but understand they are not considered evidence, only the video/audio are allowed in jury room. BSR made several admissions in the first interview with absolutely no prompting or leading. Wish the prosecution hadn’t ended their closing statement with “ you don’t even have to watch the video, focus on her words”. And of course then showing her texts (which was a good touch) I wouldn’t have wanted to serve on this jury with all they had to consider. And I’m by no means a lawyer. Prosecutors had a rough job with trying to keep the focus on BSR’s own words, both in written texts and spoken in the interviews. They also had to try to disprove the defense’s claims of IUGR/stillbirth with all of the medical testimony. I feel like I could write a thesis in fundal height. Just my own observations, but a 4 hour deliberation was not long enough. IMO MOO

Also - watching the lead detective interview on Court TV today, he brought up a good point (red flag for investigators ) about BSR entering the interview room and before any exchange, immediately started with "I didn't kill it," and repeated this over and over the entire interview, interjecting "you believe me, right?" When reunited, she used same tactic with her parents.

This reminds me of how she interacted with mom when trying to cover up her lies. I believe "I didn't____[blank], you believe me, yes"....was part of their daily dialogue. Her dad said it best: We've known you 18 years and don't know what's a lie, why would police believe you.

 

[155etta]

That whole exchange was really weird to me, too. A. Why wouldn't her mom or dad realize she should be seen? B. Why would it be a pediatrician (I'm hoping he meant primary care doctor and just mis-spoke)?

I don't think he mis-spoke. I think the way they portrayed her the whole way through the trial (goldilocks, childlike) was on purpose.

 

[155etta]

Understandably, but I bet both in private and public, your 21 year old says 'I'm going to doctor,' and not 'I'm going to the pediatrician!'

Or, I'm not going to the boy doctor.

 

[gitana1]

I'm an attorney as well -- not verified here -- but I have been one for many years. I think it's likely that she harmed her child, but I do not think so beyond a reasonable doubt. There may have been probable cause, but I do not see proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not know what was in the mind of prosecutor or if it it was an ethical violation to take the case to trial, but his explanation of why he took the case to trial surprised me. JMO.

If you're an attorney than you clearly understand there is no ethical violation in bringing a case to trial when probable cause has been established. That's the standard.

At preliminary hearings the judge doesn't dismiss the case if the state hasn't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. They dismiss if there is no probable cause. Any attorney should know that.

And this prosecutor thought he had a good chance to win. No prosecutor would pursue a case they feel they are going to lose, if they have the choice.

 

[Wishbone]

Yes! I wish the jurors could have had the transcripts of both interrogations, but understand they are not considered evidence, only the video/audio are allowed in jury room. BSR made several admissions in the first interview with absolutely no prompting or leading. Wish the prosecution hadn’t ended their closing statement with “ you don’t even have to watch the video, focus on her words”. And of course then showing her texts (which was a good touch) I wouldn’t have wanted to serve on this jury with all they had to consider. And I’m by no means a lawyer. Prosecutors had a rough job with trying to keep the focus on BSR’s own words, both in written texts and spoken in the interviews. They also had to try to disprove the defense’s claims of IUGR/stillbirth with all of the medical testimony. I feel like I could write a thesis in fundal height. Just my own observations, but a 4 hour deliberation was not long enough. IMO MOO

IMO That they were initially in agreement on the state's lack of proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt equals a short deliberation. Not much dissension if they were in agreement on the focal points of the evidence the state presented. No debating makes for quick verdicts.

 

[gitana1]

Agree. You don't have to be an attorney to have an opinion on the ethics of the State's actions. IMO it was overcharged. I wonder if the State felt community pressure to charge SR with the max which IMO is a political motive.

Let's be clear on something - the district attorney or its equivalent is indeed a political position. They don't make stupid choices to overcharge. That is not a smart political decision.

And yes I think you do have to be an attorney to have an opinion as to whether the code of ethics is violated by a certain action taken by an attorney. Or you have to be a legal ethics expert of some sort. This is a legal ethics issue. Not general ethics.

The state felt they had a chance at a murder conviction. I wouldn't have agreed based on the trends in such cases, the societal desire not to punish such people and the lack of more evidence that enables convictions in such cases like a fresh corpse with COD.

But I don't think he was stupid or violated the code of ethics in doing so.

 

[AbstractVino]

This may be a dumb question but with all the publicity surrounding the case, I thought they would show Skylar leaving the courthouse after her sentencing. What is next for her? RIP Annabelle

 

[Sweetsbeach]

I’m curious what insurer you work for. You can message me if you don’t want to post publicly (or you can just ignore of course). My DH is a pediatrician and he has never had an age limit written into a contract and he has contracts with multiple large insurers. He tries to transition patients to IM at 18/19 and recommends they have a PCP in their college town but he has some who do still see him.

Children’s hospitals often push the limits on seeing CF or CHD patients into their 30s. Although as more of us IM/Peds folks are pursuing subspecialties I think we’re filling a niche there and this is slowly shifting.

I worked for UnitedHealth Group for several years but left to join the company I work for now. I'll probably keep that to myself.
I'm glad your husband doesn't have that in his contract. I personally think having some arbitrary limit isn't helpful to anyone. It should be up to the provider and patient.

On another note, I really appreciate reading all the different perspectives here on Websleuths. I always feel like this is the best place to converse with intelligent, passionate people. I can completely disagree with someone here and still feel the mutual respect. Thank you all!

 

[Chloe_ee]

So the victim statement on Richardson side is all about the eating disorder. So for 2 years she's been out, NOTHING has changed and its gotten worse. She needs INPATIENT help, NOT going back home. Maybe in jail she'll get a break from Mom and actual help.

You know this won't be the last time we see this girl on WS...she's rotten to the core. She will do something else...

 

[Seattle1]

I worked for UnitedHealth Group for several years but left to join the company I work for now. I'll probably keep that to myself.
I'm glad your husband doesn't have that in his contract. I personally think having some arbitrary limit isn't helpful to anyone. It should be up to the provider and patient.

On another note, I really appreciate reading all the different perspectives here on Websleuths. I always feel like this is the best place to converse with intelligent, passionate people. I can completely disagree with someone here and still feel the mutual respect. Thank you all!

Thanks for your kind words -- I feel the same.

Relative to patient contract cut off at 18 +, I don't believe it unusual -- especially after enactment of ACA, and adult children able to stay on their parents family plan until age 26. 18+ year old patients that are not deemed the Subscriber can be host for all sorts issues -- which you know about better than I do.

MOO

 

[Hope4More]

Also - watching the lead detective interview on Court TV today, he brought up a good point (red flag for investigators ) about BSR entering the interview room and before any exchange, immediately started with "I didn't kill it," and repeated this over and over the entire interview, interjecting "you believe me, right?" When reunited, she used same tactic with her parents.

This reminds me of how she interacted with mom when trying to cover up her lies. I believe "I didn't____[blank], you believe me, yes"....was part of their daily dialogue. Her dad said it best: We've known you 18 years and don't know what's a lie, why would police believe you.

I watched that interview. He didn't state that Skylar immediately declared that in her first interview, and the transcript shows that she did not.

What he said was it was a red flag that she kept on saying I didn't kill her or mean to harm her, etc. It seems pretty unremarkable to me she began saying that after she told LE why she was afraid to tell her parents, and LE is asking her questions about taking BC pills.

Fact is she knew it was wrong to bury a baby in the backyard. She was trying to get LE to tell her if she was in trouble for that.

 

[Hope4More]

Yes! I wish the jurors could have had the transcripts of both interrogations, but understand they are not considered evidence, only the video/audio are allowed in jury room. BSR made several admissions in the first interview with absolutely no prompting or leading. Wish the prosecution hadn’t ended their closing statement with “ you don’t even have to watch the video, focus on her words”. And of course then showing her texts (which was a good touch) I wouldn’t have wanted to serve on this jury with all they had to consider. And I’m by no means a lawyer. Prosecutors had a rough job with trying to keep the focus on BSR’s own words, both in written texts and spoken in the interviews. They also had to try to disprove the defense’s claims of IUGR/stillbirth with all of the medical testimony. I feel like I could write a thesis in fundal height. Just my own observations, but a 4 hour deliberation was not long enough. IMO MOO

The State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the baby was born alive. They couldn't. They couldn't because they had no evidence other than a problematic confession by Skylar, and because the defense's experts provided reasonable doubt galore with evidence that Skylar's eating disorders more likely than not led to her baby being stillborn.

 

[Seattle1]

Although this reference applies to Marion County versus Warren County, OH - this is also what I understood from the Judge. Community control sanctions for BSR were not identified in court - and will be tailored to her. She was convicted of 5th degree felony -- the lowest, so I believe her sanctions will be minimal.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE "ON COMMUNITY CONTROL"?

In most cases, after an offender is found guilty of committing a crime, the court has the option of placing a defendant on community control instead of imposing a prison or jail sentence. If placed on community control for a felony offense committed in Marion County, a person can be under the supervision of the Marion County Common Pleas Court Adult Probation Department for up to five years. The Court orders offenders to adhere to community control sanctions which are tailored to the specific risks and needs of each person placed on community control.

What does it mean to be "on community control"?

 

[Chloe_ee]

They do say that. Court TV asked the Rittgers after the verdict about it - no doubt because of conversation here and elsewhere on the web. The Rittgers were adamant that, while they didn't know exactly what BSR & Dad were referring to, BSR had never been pregnant before therefore it would be impossible for them to be talking about HER having done this before. The Rittgers seemed surprised by the question and a bit baffled, honestly. So, I think they were telling the truth as they know it. I really do think he was just referring to women have killed their babies before, there is some element of lying involved in this case (at the very minimum by omission - not telling anyone the baby existed for months), therefore she was up a creek without a paddle.

I wondered if she had a baby prior to this and gave the baby up for adoption, parents hiding the pg from others and they got thru it. But, parents livid over it and, welp, she did it again...this time not telling them, going thru 'that again' and killed the baby ...

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I totally agree she will likely end up reoffending because she’s got off lightly this time, what message does this send out to the local high school cheerleaders or just girls in general that you won’t go to jail if you end up in a position where you are burying your own baby in your own garden. Even if you admit to trying to burn your baby and that you squeezed the baby. It’s absolutely ok go to the gym a few days later while you’re still healing from birthing a full term baby and take selfies of your flat belly, however it is not ok if that baby is dead in the ground and only you know. But because you put a plant pot on top of the crude grave that means you care about the baby that you didn’t request any help from 911 for and instead took her outside and buried her.
Casey Anthony vibes, can only imagine what the atmosphere was like on WS when the verdict on that one came in!

The internet was broken that day!

 

[Owutatangledweb]

I watched that interview. He didn't state that Skylar immediately declared that in her first interview, and the transcript shows that she did not.

What he said was it was a red flag that she kept on saying I didn't kill her or mean to harm her, etc. It seems pretty unremarkable to me she began saying that after she told LE why she was afraid to tell her parents, and LE is asking her questions about taking BC pills.

Fact is she knew it was wrong to bury a baby in the backyard. She was trying to get LE to tell her if she was in trouble for that.

Anyone have a link for this interview?

 

[Winterhike]

I wondered if she had a baby prior to this and gave the baby up for adoption, parents hiding the pg from others and they got thru it. But, parents livid over it and, welp, she did it again...this time not telling them, going thru 'that again' and killed the baby ...

Assuming you're serious, I think the chances of that having happened and the prosecution (and/or the defense, who knows) not using it during this trial are zero.

 

[Daytocincy]

Interesting--and Charlie Rittger (jr) was one of his attorneys as well

It was the elder Charlie actually. He wasn't the attorney for all three trials though.

 

[BeckyF]

Let's be clear on something - the district attorney or its equivalent is indeed a political position. They don't make stupid choices to overcharge. That is not a smart political decision.

And yes I think you do have to be an attorney to have an opinion as to whether the code of ethics is violated by a certain action taken by an attorney. Or you have to be a legal ethics expert of some sort. This is a legal ethics issue. Not general ethics.

The state felt they had a chance at a murder conviction. I wouldn't have agreed based on the trends in such cases, the societal desire not to punish such people and the lack of more evidence that enables convictions in such cases like a fresh corpse with COD.

But I don't think he was stupid or violated the code of ethics in doing so.

We agree to disagree.