GUILTY IA - Gabriel McFarland, 4 mos, dies of head trauma, Des Moines, 22 April 2014

[K_Z]

Thanks for weighing in, folks.

The lack of referring to DWS either by name, or as "the dad" strikes me as having a couple opposite possibilities:

- Sheltering DWS from scrutiny, by not naming him by name, or as "the baby's dad". If the relationship between DWS and Markeya was really "good" and progressing in a positive direction, there might be an impulse to shelter DWS from scrutiny, since things looked pretty awful at that moment. Siobhan might have been trying subconsciously to protect her friend Markeya, who wouldn't have wanted to be associated with abandoning a baby in trouble.

or

- Depersonalizing him as a mere "somebody" who was "babysitting", in order to distance him from the relationship with Markeya and Gabriel, because leaving Gabriel alone was such a disastrous thing to do. It also strikes me that if there was some kind of ongoing, or very recent serious disagreement between Markeya and him, there might be the tendency to depersonalize and "demote" him as just a "somebody" who was "babysitting". For example, if they had quarreled just before she left to run errands.

- I agree with alp66ine that the interpretation that the caller might know "more" about what happened is also a strong possibility. The phrasing fits that kind of pattern.

But I disagree that a possible explanation is that she may have forgotten his name. Even if she didn't know him well, and forgot his given name, it seems pretty doubtful she would forget the designation that he was the baby's father.

Anyway, I think the significance, of the caller's statement to 911, if there is any, will only be apparent in hindsight, when we know more about what happened.

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks for weighing in, folks.

The lack of referring to DWS either by name, or as "the dad" strikes me as having a couple opposite possibilities:

- Sheltering DWS from scrutiny, by not naming him by name, or as "the baby's dad". If the relationship between DWS and Markeya was really "good" and progressing in a positive direction, there might be an impulse to shelter DWS from scrutiny, since things looked pretty awful at that moment. Siobhan might have been trying subconsciously to protect her friend Markeya, who wouldn't have wanted to be associated with abandoning a baby in trouble.

or

- Depersonalizing him as a mere "somebody" who was "babysitting", in order to distance him from the relationship with Markeya and Gabriel, because leaving Gabriel alone was such a disastrous thing to do. It also strikes me that if there was some kind of ongoing, or very recent serious disagreement between Markeya and him, there might be the tendency to depersonalize and "demote" him as just a "somebody" who was "babysitting". For example, if they had quarreled just before she left to run errands.

- I agree with alp66ine that the interpretation that the caller might know "more" about what happened is also a strong possibility. The phrasing fits that kind of pattern.

But I disagree that a possible explanation is that she may have forgotten his name. Even if she didn't know him well, and forgot his given name, it seems pretty doubtful she would forget the designation that he was the baby's father.

Anyway, I think the significance, of the caller's statement to 911, if there is any, will only be apparent in hindsight, when we know more about what happened.

I doubt Siobhan was trying to protect the father or in any way shield him considering the police reports said she went back to the apartment at the mother's request after she questioned whether the mother should be trusting him.

I agree, at some point, we will have a very good idea about what happened. We have yet to learn his side of the story.

JMO

 

[borndem]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and share something that has been bugging me about this case, to see if anyone else has any different viewpoints. I anticipate I might get flamed for even saying this, but it's odd enough, IMO, to catch my attention. So I'm gonna put it out there, and duck for cover.

>>> vrsbm <<<

Dispatch: 911
Caller: Hello?
Dispatch: 911
Caller: Somebody left my friend's baby that they were babysitting by themselves... and the baby's blue....and...
Dispatch: Ok, what's your address? What's your address?
Caller: Markeya, what is the address?

>>> vrsbm <<<

I agree, K_Z -- The "Somebody," especially, has stuck in my head from the beginning. Yes, and scared-to-death teenager or not, why not say, "We've got a baby here who is blue and I don't think he is breathing. We need help..."

The anonymous Somebody... why? And why "by themselves," other than to try and make sure the 911 Op would know that no one else was involved? No one else was, but that's not important right now.

Of course we never know what we will say, and we prolly won't remember a word of it after, but if it had been me, all I would have been thinking is, the baby may be dead, he is blue, we can't get him to breathe, we need help. Especially the baby being blue & not breathing. Nothing else matters.

Anyway, K_Z, no blasts or barbs or bombs from me. You've been in the middle of such things, prolly too many times. I, thank God, have never been in that kind of a crisis. Your experience is valuable, IMO.

Good points, Gas-Passer!

 

[chaotic_idealism]

How much do we know about people who are making 911 calls, though? Sometimes people will give irrelevant information out of sheer panic and confusion because they're not concentrating well enough to pick out the most relevant facts right away. Like, for example, a lady in the emergency room, having a heart attack; she's worried that she hasn't watered her plants that day... People do stuff like that.

If we wanted to figure out whether that 911 call contained any hidden information, I think the best approach would be to find a database of 911 calls, listen to a few dozen of them, and see how people actually do react in emergencies. If some sizable chunk of people tend to just spit out everything they know, regardless of whether or not it's pertinent, then that would make this particular 911 call quite normal. If most people tend to give only the absolute most important facts, then it would be unusual. Even if it were unusual, though, that mightn't mean very much. All it would take would be a slight lapse in concentration; like, a lapse caused by trying to resuscitate the baby while holding a phone and talking.

I think we're reading too much into the 911 call right now--I think we need some more concrete info on how people do and don't react during emergencies, and how common it is to give irrelevant information.

 

[chaotic_idealism]

I see what you mean. Interesting information.

Still not diagnostic--she returned because she was worried about the boyfriend; that would've been very much on her mind at the time, so it's not completely extraneous information. "This guy who was babysitting left the baby alone" isn't immediately important but it's not trivial randomness, either.

Maybe she knew or suspected ahead of time that the boyfriend was dangerous. I mean, more ahead of time than just when she warned the mom. If I were in that situation, knew a man had potential to hurt someone and didn't tell anyone until just before he killed a baby, I'd feel very guilty even though I'd only be guilty of not acting on suspicion.

If that's the case, if she knew something, I hope she's talking to the police.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Remember she is a victim. So we are not speculating about MA.

I think when you get young people who are in a crisis situation there is no script they will follow. I think that the police are satisfied with the outcome and have charged ONE person with first degree murder. And there it lays.

 

[MyBelle]

Excellent suggestion to look for studies, which is what I had started to do before I wrote the original post about the 911 call.

This is a pretty good article I found, which compares and contrasts 911 callers in cases that ultimately the callers were known to be either guilty, or innocent, of homicide.

More at links.

STATEMENT ANALYSIS 911 CALLS - Cold Case Investigations



Same article, a different/ better site:


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/911+h...alysis:+is+the+caller+the+killer?-a0180406725




Again, I want to stress that the phrasing of this call by MA's friend may mean nothing at all other than extreme panic and stress. It just struck me as odd to phrase it about the circumstances of who was babysitting, etc, rather than immediately on the condition of an infant in dire condition.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it. In all the many cases I've followed, my hinky meter has been wrong only twice. And one of them, the caller was charged but verdict later set aside. The other still still bugs me.

 

[al66pine]

Remember she is a victim. So we are not speculating about MA.

I think when you get young people who are in a crisis situation there is no script they will follow. I think that the police are satisfied with the outcome and have charged ONE person with first degree murder. And there it lays.

BBM

Absolutely, positively correct.
Charged one person.

So far.
No indication yet as to whether any others will or will not be charged in connection w this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

Absolutely, positively correct.
Charged one person.

So far.
No indication yet as to whether any others will or will not be charged in connection w this case.

No one is charged but him. No one is named except him. I think this is over.

 

[tlcya]

I am still awaiting more details (ie. trial or allocution)

It certainly seems as if LE feel they have their culprit. For instance, we know from experience case following that often, if LE is still investigating and they already have a perp in custody charged with lesser or unrelated crimes, they do not tend to rush to throw more charges at that individual if they are still investigating/building their case. Because then all those deadlines come into play and clocks begin ticking on things like arraignment, discovery etc.

I am not sure what the advantage would be for LE to rush to charge this young man with murder 1 if they already had him on lesser charges and were not confident they had their man.

But IMO, Once this case has been adjudicated, then its over. Just MOO

 

[chaotic_idealism]

She could still be a critical witness. Maybe she already is.

 

[Salem]

There are many posts in this thread that purport to give some very good information while subtly casting suspicion/blame on the mother and a witness. I have removed some of those posts and will be back reading to catch any others.

This is the last time I am going to say this. The mom is a victim here. Leave her alone unless you have something from LE that says she was somehow involved. As for the witness - we don't witness blame here either. So leave the witness alone, unless you have an LE link.

Salem

 

[borndem]

I just do not see this as a premeditated murder. Not arguing with anyone, just stating my opinion. It feels like there are a few important missing pieces, prior to Gabriel's death.

It is really odd that there has not been an arraignment yet. Perhaps they are investigating those missing pieces that concern me? Sure hope so.

bbm
I agree, 1&2&3 -- I think the baby started crying, he tried to calm him with no luck, the baby got worse -- as many of us know, they can get quite cranked up even at that age, and they absolutely can sense stress & anxiety, I am sure -- and dad panicked. Perhaps put his hand over his mouth, no relief; picked him up; put him down; bounced him around; talked to him, more crying; and then he either shook him hard enuff to silence him, threw him against a wall or struck him hard, or something similar.

I have always felt that he acted alone. A panicked or irresponsible teenager who didn't want to be a daddy or who just did not know how to be a good one. It's scary. Or opportune. We don't know which.

Maybe the DA is just hoping he will take a M2 plea which is what, IMO, it ought to be, unless they know things we don't -- which is the way it always is & should be.

If we hear more, I may change my mind. He could have wanted to get out of the whole thing & saw an opportunity -- and say the baby "fell off the bed/couch/whatever," not knowing that this is an old, old, theme... That would be M1. I hope there is good evidence to support one or the other or both.

This cannot stand.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

bbm
I agree, 1&2&3 -- I think the baby started crying, he tried to calm him with no luck, the baby got worse -- as many of us know, they can get quite cranked up even at that age, and they absolutely can sense stress & anxiety, I am sure -- and dad panicked. Perhaps put his hand over his mouth, no relief; picked him up; put him down; bounced him around; talked to him, more crying; and then he either shook him hard enuff to silence him, threw him against a wall or struck him hard, or something similar.

I have always felt that he acted alone. A panicked or irresponsible teenager who didn't want to be a daddy or who just did not know how to be a good one. It's scary. Or opportune. We don't know which.

Maybe the DA is just hoping he will take a M2 plea which is what, IMO, it ought to be, unless they know things we don't -- which is the way it always is & should be.

If we hear more, I may change my mind. He could have wanted to get out of the whole thing & saw an opportunity -- and say the baby "fell off the bed/couch/whatever," not knowing that this is an old, old, theme... That would be M1. I hope there is good evidence to support one or the other or both.

This cannot stand.

There is just no way to know this. If this was the facts I would think he would be charged with second degree.

We know nothing of the facts and the fact that the babies clothes were wet seem to mean something.

I am not ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[MyBelle]

bbm
I agree, 1&2&3 -- I think the baby started crying, he tried to calm him with no luck, the baby got worse -- as many of us know, they can get quite cranked up even at that age, and they absolutely can sense stress & anxiety, I am sure -- and dad panicked. Perhaps put his hand over his mouth, no relief; picked him up; put him down; bounced him around; talked to him, more crying; and then he either shook him hard enuff to silence him, threw him against a wall or struck him hard, or something similar.

I have always felt that he acted alone. A panicked or irresponsible teenager who didn't want to be a daddy or who just did not know how to be a good one. It's scary. Or opportune. We don't know which.

Maybe the DA is just hoping he will take a M2 plea which is what, IMO, it ought to be, unless they know things we don't -- which is the way it always is & should be.

If we hear more, I may change my mind. He could have wanted to get out of the whole thing & saw an opportunity -- and say the baby "fell off the bed/couch/whatever," not knowing that this is an old, old, theme... That would be M1. I hope there is good evidence to support one or the other or both.

This cannot stand.

I agree so much depends on the details that haven't been released. Shaking a baby to quiet him is a decision of immaturity but hitting him is an act of violence, imo. If the Judge decides his actions were a result of teenage immaturity, I think this could go into juvenile court on the lessor charge.


JMO

 

[al66pine]

Wrong thread

 

[OkieGranny]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/06/06/des-moines-teen-charged-with-murder-pleads-not-guilty-is-released-from-jail/10089017/

A Des Moines teen who has been charged with first-degree murder in his son's death has entered a written "not guilty" plea and is scheduled for an August trial.

Drew James Weehler-Smith, 17, was charged after his 4-month-old son, Gabriel King McFarland, was found dead from abusive head trauma on April 22, according to a medical examiner. The child's mother, Markeya Atkins, had left the child alone with Weehler-Smith in her apartment at around 7:25 p.m.; she returned to find the baby unconscious.

Weehler-Smith is also charged with neglect of a dependent person. Weehler-Smith was released from the Polk County Jail on Tuesday after an $80,000 cash bond was posted.

 

[seattlechiquita]

WE do know that he had been there and helping her with the baby before according to her. She apparently had no reason to believe that he would ever harm the baby and I think her actions in asking her friend to go right back when friend was alarmed shows that she had no idea he would ever hurt his son.

It is a shame. It is just heartbreaking.

Indeed, heartbreaking all around.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ds-not-guilty-is-released-from-jail/10089017/

Interesting. I am glad that at least we have a court date but I will be surprised if he does not accept some deal down the line.

<modsnip>

 

[seattlechiquita]

Interesting. I am glad that at least we have a court date but I will be surprised if he does not accept some deal down the line.

<modsnip>.

Per your lin, the "father's" name is Drew James Weehler-Smith