Okay, after mulling over the evidence presented during the first trial week, here are my thoughts for now. Warning, long (and slightly rambling) post incoming!
First, as someone who has handled a lot criminal cases, I would advice people to be careful about making negative inferences based on ambiguous evidence or statements, like her dad saying “It's happened before” or BSR's text messages. Once you start going down that road, it's easy to get tunnel vision and interpret even innocuous things as evidence against the defendant.
To illustrate I'll point out an infamous case in the Netherlands, in which a nurse was accused and convicted of murdering several people in a hospital. The court used some ambiguous entries in the defendants' diary to support her conviction. On the day of death of one of her patients she wrote that she had 'given in to her compulsion'. She wrote on other occasions that she had a 'very great secret' and that she was concerned about 'her tendency to give in to her compulsion'. The nurse told the court that these were references to her passion for reading tarot cards, which she explains she did secretly because she did not believe it appropriate to the clinical setting of a hospital. However, the court decided they were evidence that she had murdered the patients. A few years later it turned out she was completely innocent and she was released from prison.
Murder or stillbirth?
First of all I have to point out that the original scenario presented by the prosecution seems to have been completely disproved. The scenario was that BSR smashed her baby's skull, burned the body and then buried the remains. The forensics clearly do not support this. The pathologist (whose statement was a complete and utter train wreck from a prosecution PoV IMHO) was outright forced to admit there was no sign of trauma on the remains and she couldn't rule out a stillbirth either. The forensic anthropologist stated there was no sign of burning and any fractures, punctures, abrasions that were noted on the remains happened after the death of the individual. That's a pretty strong declarative statement.
I think the defense on the other hand has done a good job pointing out several risk factors that could've led to a stillbirth. We have young woman who has never given birth before (risk factor) with a severe eating disorder (risk factor) who had had no prenatal care (risk factor), with indications that the fetus was small (risk factor) and finally delivered the baby alone without any medical assistance (risk factor). Any prenatal issue could've also been compounded by the fact that her labor seems to have been on the long side, since she apparently started showing signs of labor during her prom and delivered the baby roughly two days later.
Based on the above I simply definitely can not rule out the possibility of a stillbirth, regardless of BSR's intentions.
With regards to the text messages (at least the ones that we've seen during the prosecutions opening statement): they look bad, but are not in itself evidence for proving murderous intent. Though her flippant attitude might be considered offensive, at worst it shows BSR was happy about the fact she wasn't pregnant anymore and that no one (especially mom) had to find out about her pregnancy and she could go on with her life. Considering the fact the pregnancy was unwanted, there was no time for parental bonding, and the strong indications that there were unhealthy family dynamics at play, BSR's texts can fit both a murder or a stillbirth scenario, and are thus not of much probative value.
Burning the baby?
I'm fully convinced the baby wasn't burned. There is no forensic evidence and BSR's description of how she burned the baby's foot and then the flames rapidly reached the baby's chest sounded downright nonsensical to me. Burning the body also doesn't make sense if we assume she wanted to hide the body as soon possible and she didn't want to draw any attention. So why does the prosecution cling to this detail? The answer is simple: the second interrogation. If the prosecution concedes that the whole burning thing is a canard, you can basically throw away the entire second interview and the prosecution's case is sunk. Simply put, this is a hill they have to fight (and die) on! I think it's going to be a losing battle though.
Evidence from the electronic devices
So next week we'll hear the evidence collected from her electronic devices (and her mother will be heard as a witness). We will probably get a lot more information about BSR's online search history, her text messages, and her relationship with her mother. I suspect the evidence will show more proof of the fact that the pregancy was unwanted and BSR was pleased she wasn't pregnant anymore and that she could carry on with her life as if nothing had happened after burying the baby. I also suspect we'll get a lot more insight into her relationship with her mother.
What we won't be seeing, I suspect, are any bombshells that can outright prove either murderous intent or proof of murder. If there were messages like that, it's extremely likely we would've seen them presented during the prosecution's opening statement. We also wouldn't see the prosecution clinging so stubbornly to the burning scenario, which to me is a very strong indicator they desperately need that second interrogation in order to score a conviction.
The second interrogation
The main event next week will be the second interrogation which has already been frequently referred to by both the prosecution and the defense. Based on the snippets I've seen and read from the second interrogation video, some of the methods used are text book Reid technique and at points the interrogators appear to feed the language of the confession to BSR, which, to me, is a major red flag. I'll need to see more of the interview before drawing a full conclusion though.
Okay, rambling post over! English is not my first language, so I hope I wasn't too incoherent in getting my points across!
Okay, after mulling over the evidence presented during the first trial week, here are my thoughts for now. Warning, long (and slightly rambling) post incoming!
First, as someone who has handled a lot criminal cases, I would advice people to be careful about making negative inferences based on ambiguous evidence or statements, like her dad saying “It's happened before” or BSR's text messages. Once you start going down that road, it's easy to get tunnel vision and interpret even innocuous things as evidence against the defendant.
To illustrate I'll point out an infamous case in the Netherlands, in which a nurse was accused and convicted of murdering several people in a hospital. The court used some ambiguous entries in the defendants' diary to support her conviction. On the day of death of one of her patients she wrote that she had 'given in to her compulsion'. She wrote on other occasions that she had a 'very great secret' and that she was concerned about 'her tendency to give in to her compulsion'. The nurse told the court that these were references to her passion for reading tarot cards, which she explains she did secretly because she did not believe it appropriate to the clinical setting of a hospital. However, the court decided they were evidence that she had murdered the patients. A few years later it turned out she was completely innocent and she was released from prison.
Murder or stillbirth?
First of all I have to point out that the original scenario presented by the prosecution seems to have been completely disproved. The scenario was that BSR smashed her baby's skull, burned the body and then buried the remains. The forensics clearly do not support this. The pathologist (whose statement was a complete and utter train wreck from a prosecution PoV IMHO) was outright forced to admit there was no sign of trauma on the remains and she couldn't rule out a stillbirth either. The forensic anthropologist stated there was no sign of burning and any fractures, punctures, abrasions that were noted on the remains happened after the death of the individual. That's a pretty strong declarative statement.
I think the defense on the other hand has done a good job pointing out several risk factors that could've led to a stillbirth. We have young woman who has never given birth before (risk factor) with a severe eating disorder (risk factor) who had had no prenatal care (risk factor), with indications that the fetus was small (risk factor) and finally delivered the baby alone without any medical assistance (risk factor). Any prenatal issue could've also been compounded by the fact that her labor seems to have been on the long side, since she apparently started showing signs of labor during her prom and delivered the baby roughly two days later.
Based on the above I simply definitely can not rule out the possibility of a stillbirth, regardless of BSR's intentions.
With regards to the text messages (at least the ones that we've seen during the prosecutions opening statement): they look bad, but are not in itself evidence for proving murderous intent. Though her flippant attitude might be considered offensive, at worst it shows BSR was happy about the fact she wasn't pregnant anymore and that no one (especially mom) had to find out about her pregnancy and she could go on with her life. Considering the fact the pregnancy was unwanted, there was no time for parental bonding, and the strong indications that there were unhealthy family dynamics at play, BSR's texts can fit both a murder or a stillbirth scenario, and are thus not of much probative value.
Burning the baby?
I'm fully convinced the baby wasn't burned. There is no forensic evidence and BSR's description of how she burned the baby's foot and then the flames rapidly reached the baby's chest sounded downright nonsensical to me. Burning the body also doesn't make sense if we assume she wanted to hide the body as soon possible and she didn't want to draw any attention. So why does the prosecution cling to this detail? The answer is simple: the second interrogation. If the prosecution concedes that the whole burning thing is a canard, you can basically throw away the entire second interview and the prosecution's case is sunk. Simply put, this is a hill they have to fight (and die) on! I think it's going to be a losing battle though.
Evidence from the electronic devices
So next week we'll hear the evidence collected from her electronic devices (and her mother will be heard as a witness). We will probably get a lot more information about BSR's online search history, her text messages, and her relationship with her mother. I suspect the evidence will show more proof of the fact that the pregancy was unwanted and BSR was pleased she wasn't pregnant anymore and that she could carry on with her life as if nothing had happened after burying the baby. I also suspect we'll get a lot more insight into her relationship with her mother.
What we won't be seeing, I suspect, are any bombshells that can outright prove either murderous intent or proof of murder. If there were messages like that, it's extremely likely we would've seen them presented during the prosecution's opening statement. We also wouldn't see the prosecution clinging so stubbornly to the burning scenario, which to me is a very strong indicator they desperately need that second interrogation in order to score a conviction.
The second interrogation
The main event next week will be the second interrogation which has already been frequently referred to by both the prosecution and the defense. Based on the snippets I've seen and read from the second interrogation video, some of the methods used are text book Reid technique and at points the interrogators appear to feed the language of the confession to BSR, which, to me, is a major red flag. I'll need to see more of the interview before drawing a full conclusion though.
Okay, rambling post over! English is not my first language, so I hope I wasn't too incoherent in getting my points across!
Okay, after mulling over the evidence presented during the first trial week, here are my thoughts for now. Warning, long (and slightly rambling) post incoming!
First, as someone who has handled a lot criminal cases, I would advice people to be careful about making negative inferences based on ambiguous evidence or statements, like her dad saying “It's happened before” or BSR's text messages. Once you start going down that road, it's easy to get tunnel vision and interpret even innocuous things as evidence against the defendant.
To illustrate I'll point out an infamous case in the Netherlands, in which a nurse was accused and convicted of murdering several people in a hospital. The court used some ambiguous entries in the defendants' diary to support her conviction. On the day of death of one of her patients she wrote that she had 'given in to her compulsion'. She wrote on other occasions that she had a 'very great secret' and that she was concerned about 'her tendency to give in to her compulsion'. The nurse told the court that these were references to her passion for reading tarot cards, which she explains she did secretly because she did not believe it appropriate to the clinical setting of a hospital. However, the court decided they were evidence that she had murdered the patients. A few years later it turned out she was completely innocent and she was released from prison.
Murder or stillbirth?
First of all I have to point out that the original scenario presented by the prosecution seems to have been completely disproved. The scenario was that BSR smashed her baby's skull, burned the body and then buried the remains. The forensics clearly do not support this. The pathologist (whose statement was a complete and utter train wreck from a prosecution PoV IMHO) was outright forced to admit there was no sign of trauma on the remains and she couldn't rule out a stillbirth either. The forensic anthropologist stated there was no sign of burning and any fractures, punctures, abrasions that were noted on the remains happened after the death of the individual. That's a pretty strong declarative statement.
I think the defense on the other hand has done a good job pointing out several risk factors that could've led to a stillbirth. We have young woman who has never given birth before (risk factor) with a severe eating disorder (risk factor) who had had no prenatal care (risk factor), with indications that the fetus was small (risk factor) and finally delivered the baby alone without any medical assistance (risk factor). Any prenatal issue could've also been compounded by the fact that her labor seems to have been on the long side, since she apparently started showing signs of labor during her prom and delivered the baby roughly two days later.
Based on the above I simply definitely can not rule out the possibility of a stillbirth, regardless of BSR's intentions.
With regards to the text messages (at least the ones that we've seen during the prosecutions opening statement): they look bad, but are not in itself evidence for proving murderous intent. Though her flippant attitude might be considered offensive, at worst it shows BSR was happy about the fact she wasn't pregnant anymore and that no one (especially mom) had to find out about her pregnancy and she could go on with her life. Considering the fact the pregnancy was unwanted, there was no time for parental bonding, and the strong indications that there were unhealthy family dynamics at play, BSR's texts can fit both a murder or a stillbirth scenario, and are thus not of much probative value.
Burning the baby?
I'm fully convinced the baby wasn't burned. There is no forensic evidence and BSR's description of how she burned the baby's foot and then the flames rapidly reached the baby's chest sounded downright nonsensical to me. Burning the body also doesn't make sense if we assume she wanted to hide the body as soon possible and she didn't want to draw any attention. So why does the prosecution cling to this detail? The answer is simple: the second interrogation. If the prosecution concedes that the whole burning thing is a canard, you can basically throw away the entire second interview and the prosecution's case is sunk. Simply put, this is a hill they have to fight (and die) on! I think it's going to be a losing battle though.
Evidence from the electronic devices
So next week we'll hear the evidence collected from her electronic devices (and her mother will be heard as a witness). We will probably get a lot more information about BSR's online search history, her text messages, and her relationship with her mother. I suspect the evidence will show more proof of the fact that the pregancy was unwanted and BSR was pleased she wasn't pregnant anymore and that she could carry on with her life as if nothing had happened after burying the baby. I also suspect we'll get a lot more insight into her relationship with her mother.
What we won't be seeing, I suspect, are any bombshells that can outright prove either murderous intent or proof of murder. If there were messages like that, it's extremely likely we would've seen them presented during the prosecution's opening statement. We also wouldn't see the prosecution clinging so stubbornly to the burning scenario, which to me is a very strong indicator they desperately need that second interrogation in order to score a conviction.
The second interrogation
The main event next week will be the second interrogation which has already been frequently referred to by both the prosecution and the defense. Based on the snippets I've seen and read from the second interrogation video, some of the methods used are text book Reid technique and at points the interrogators appear to feed the language of the confession to BSR, which, to me, is a major red flag. I'll need to see more of the interview before drawing a full conclusion though.
Okay, rambling post over! English is not my first language, so I hope I wasn't too incoherent in getting my points across!
Okay, after mulling over the evidence presented during the first trial week, here are my thoughts for now. Warning, long (and slightly rambling) post incoming!
First, as someone who has handled a lot criminal cases, I would advice people to be careful about making negative inferences based on ambiguous evidence or statements, like her dad saying “It's happened before” or BSR's text messages. Once you start going down that road, it's easy to get tunnel vision and interpret even innocuous things as evidence against the defendant.
To illustrate I'll point out an infamous case in the Netherlands, in which a nurse was accused and convicted of murdering several people in a hospital. The court used some ambiguous entries in the defendants' diary to support her conviction. On the day of death of one of her patients she wrote that she had 'given in to her compulsion'. She wrote on other occasions that she had a 'very great secret' and that she was concerned about 'her tendency to give in to her compulsion'. The nurse told the court that these were references to her passion for reading tarot cards, which she explains she did secretly because she did not believe it appropriate to the clinical setting of a hospital. However, the court decided they were evidence that she had murdered the patients. A few years later it turned out she was completely innocent and she was released from prison.
Murder or stillbirth?
First of all I have to point out that the original scenario presented by the prosecution seems to have been completely disproved. The scenario was that BSR smashed her baby's skull, burned the body and then buried the remains. The forensics clearly do not support this. The pathologist (whose statement was a complete and utter train wreck from a prosecution PoV IMHO) was outright forced to admit there was no sign of trauma on the remains and she couldn't rule out a stillbirth either. The forensic anthropologist stated there was no sign of burning and any fractures, punctures, abrasions that were noted on the remains happened after the death of the individual. That's a pretty strong declarative statement.
I think the defense on the other hand has done a good job pointing out several risk factors that could've led to a stillbirth. We have young woman who has never given birth before (risk factor) with a severe eating disorder (risk factor) who had had no prenatal care (risk factor), with indications that the fetus was small (risk factor) and finally delivered the baby alone without any medical assistance (risk factor). Any prenatal issue could've also been compounded by the fact that her labor seems to have been on the long side, since she apparently started showing signs of labor during her prom and delivered the baby roughly two days later.
Based on the above I simply definitely can not rule out the possibility of a stillbirth, regardless of BSR's intentions.
With regards to the text messages (at least the ones that we've seen during the prosecutions opening statement): they look bad, but are not in itself evidence for proving murderous intent. Though her flippant attitude might be considered offensive, at worst it shows BSR was happy about the fact she wasn't pregnant anymore and that no one (especially mom) had to find out about her pregnancy and she could go on with her life. Considering the fact the pregnancy was unwanted, there was no time for parental bonding, and the strong indications that there were unhealthy family dynamics at play, BSR's texts can fit both a murder or a stillbirth scenario, and are thus not of much probative value.
Burning the baby?
I'm fully convinced the baby wasn't burned. There is no forensic evidence and BSR's description of how she burned the baby's foot and then the flames rapidly reached the baby's chest sounded downright nonsensical to me. Burning the body also doesn't make sense if we assume she wanted to hide the body as soon possible and she didn't want to draw any attention. So why does the prosecution cling to this detail? The answer is simple: the second interrogation. If the prosecution concedes that the whole burning thing is a canard, you can basically throw away the entire second interview and the prosecution's case is sunk. Simply put, this is a hill they have to fight (and die) on! I think it's going to be a losing battle though.
Evidence from the electronic devices
So next week we'll hear the evidence collected from her electronic devices (and her mother will be heard as a witness). We will probably get a lot more information about BSR's online search history, her text messages, and her relationship with her mother. I suspect the evidence will show more proof of the fact that the pregancy was unwanted and BSR was pleased she wasn't pregnant anymore and that she could carry on with her life as if nothing had happened after burying the baby. I also suspect we'll get a lot more insight into her relationship with her mother.
What we won't be seeing, I suspect, are any bombshells that can outright prove either murderous intent or proof of murder. If there were messages like that, it's extremely likely we would've seen them presented during the prosecution's opening statement. We also wouldn't see the prosecution clinging so stubbornly to the burning scenario, which to me is a very strong indicator they desperately need that second interrogation in order to score a conviction.
The second interrogation
The main event next week will be the second interrogation which has already been frequently referred to by both the prosecution and the defense. Based on the snippets I've seen and read from the second interrogation video, some of the methods used are text book Reid technique and at points the interrogators appear to feed the language of the confession to BSR, which, to me, is a major red flag. I'll need to see more of the interview before drawing a full conclusion though.
Okay, rambling post over! English is not my first language, so I hope I wasn't too incoherent in getting my points across!
