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

[chaotic_idealism]

There are no assumptions made in obtaining a driver's license in Iowa. A test of knowledge of laws and driving skill must be passed and even then the license has significant restrictions.

Yes, I get that. A 16 year old is different from an adult; for that matter, a 20 year old is different from a 30 year old.

The mechanical skill needed to pass a driving test is possible at much younger than 16. Why don't we license drivers at 12, or simply get rid of the age requirement altogether and let anyone drive if they can pass? Because we don't think that at 12, a person has the judgment necessary to get behind the wheel, a position where if he made an error in judgment, he could kill someone. But the law says that by 16, 15 with supervision and younger with farm vehicles, a teenager who can pass a driving test is presumed to be competent to drive.

[modsnip]. What is relevant is maturity and skill, education and especially judgment. All which can not be predicted solely on calendar age and everything to do with studies that have tracked the data. It is the reason why our justice system treats minors differently than adults.

16 is the cutoff age not because it's where such responsibility begins, but because it's where it's present in such a large majority of teenagers that it's a good bet that a teenager driving at 16 is responsible to essentially put other people's lives in their hands.

16-year-olds can also become lifeguards and do other jobs where they are in charge of other people's welfare.

A 16-year-old accused of a major crime is usually tried as an adult, under the presumption that their actions are not excusable on the basis of their young age.

I do not think that this particular teenager's actions can be excused because he was only 17. Nor do I think they can be predicted based on his age; nor do there seem to be any particular indications that he was unusually irresponsible--no criminal record that we know of, no history of violence. By 17, age is becoming irrelevant; anyhow, I've met 30-year-olds who were less mature than the average thirteen-year-old.

I am still curious as to why first-degree... The implication that he planned this, is rather frightening; but how do they know he did? Hoping that he'll plea-bargain to second-degree may be the cause, but if not, then... it's odd.

 

[AnaTeresa]

JMO, but they want to get this out of juvenile court and into adult court, as AnaTeresa implied.

Depending on the evidence, there could be a plea offer to a lesser charge, still in adult court. And if it goes to trial, lesser charges can be part of what the jury may consider.

We have no idea what the ACTUAL evidence is, at this point. No one here has seen the autopsy report. We don't have police reports. We do not yet know the strength of the evidence against DWS.

It seems VERY odd to me that the arraignment is being delayed for such a long time, which make me wonder what is going on with the investigation. If it was so very "cut and dried", DWS would be arraigned at this point in time, and the case would be moving on, IMO. There is more to what is being considered by authorities, IMO, than the "one hour" or so (less, by some reports) that DWS was with the child. And more than the fight between keeping the case in juvie vs adult court. JMO.

There is more to the "back story" that we aren't privy to, IMO. The attorney for the McFarlands alluded to this when he discussed that there were complications in the completion of the paperwork for the adoption due to the birth parents being both minors.

Regarding the delayed arraignment, I wonder if his attorney is trying to do some behind the scenes negotiating. We have occasionally had clients plead guilty at arraignment after negotiations with the prosecutors to avoid media attention or to keep things low key. This has usually been cases like DUI or criminal mischief, etc. Not serious cases like this.

Another reason I can think of why it might be delayed could be some sort of negotiations to keep the case in juvenile court. When we represented a mentally ill sixteen year old charged with felonious assault and attempted murder, the case moved at a snail's pace, particularly at the beginning when we were trying to keep it in juvenile court. It was very, very cut and dried, but the reason the arraignment and all subsequent stages were delayed was due to the juvenile vs. adult court fight, and trying to figure out the depth of mental illness we were dealing with. If there are signs he is mentally ill, they could be doing mental health evaluations as part of negotiating with the prosecutors, and thus, the delay.

Or there's another reason. Maybe it's not so cut and dried. Who knows?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am still curious as to why first-degree... The implication that he planned this, is rather frightening; but how do they know he did? Hoping that he'll plea-bargain to second-degree may be the cause, but if not, then... it's odd.

RSBM

I think part has to do with statute and part has to do with the fact that premeditation is not a long term thing.. yes some murderers give us really great evidence by doing things well in advance. Buying gas cans, or weapons.. But premeditation can be momentary. I think here it could be because it was a child and according to the statutes I read here they do go for first degree. Personally I think all Child deaths due to child abuse should indeed be first degree and hold as harsh of a penalty. But that is JMO.

This baby, by all accounts was loved and cared for. He was doing well and growing and healthy. The mother was doing a great job by all accounts.
She mentions in the articles previously linked that the father had been there, helping take care of the baby.

There seems to be no warning signs as is sadly the case in many of these deaths. Sometimes people just lose it or decide they don't want this.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, I get that. A 16 year old is different from an adult; for that matter, a 20 year old is different from a 30 year old.

The mechanical skill needed to pass a driving test is possible at much younger than 16. Why don't we license drivers at 12, or simply get rid of the age requirement altogether and let anyone drive if they can pass? Because we don't think that at 12, a person has the judgment necessary to get behind the wheel, a position where if he made an error in judgment, he could kill someone. But the law says that by 16, 15 with supervision and younger with farm vehicles, a teenager who can pass a driving test is presumed to be competent to drive.



16 is the cutoff age not because it's where such responsibility begins, but because it's where it's present in such a large majority of teenagers that it's a good bet that a teenager driving at 16 is responsible to essentially put other people's lives in their hands.

16-year-olds can also become lifeguards and do other jobs where they are in charge of other people's welfare.

A 16-year-old accused of a major crime is usually tried as an adult, under the presumption that their actions are not excusable on the basis of their young age.

I do not think that this particular teenager's actions can be excused because he was only 17. Nor do I think they can be predicted based on his age; nor do there seem to be any particular indications that he was unusually irresponsible--no criminal record that we know of, no history of violence. By 17, age is becoming irrelevant; anyhow, I've met 30-year-olds who were less mature than the average thirteen-year-old.

I am still curious as to why first-degree... The implication that he planned this, is rather frightening; but how do they know he did? Hoping that he'll plea-bargain to second-degree may be the cause, but if not, then... it's odd.

Nobody is asking that this teenager's actions be excused. I think it is apples to oranges to compare being parent of an infant to the responsibilities of driving or being a lifeguard or being a care provider to somebody else's child. Those other things do require knowledge, skill and passing tests/certifications. Only parenting doesn't require tests/certifications. Child victims of abuse at the hands of their own parents is a serious problem.

He's charged with first degree murder and child endangerment because authorities are taking Gabriel's death seriously and minors are all involved, including the witness. There has not been an arraignment. There is clearly more to this story and we don't know the details.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Nobody is asking that this teenager's actions be excused. I think it is apples to oranges to compare being parent of an infant to the responsibilities of driving or being a lifeguard or being a care provider to somebody else's child. Those other things do require knowledge, skill and passing tests/certifications. Only parenting doesn't require tests/certifications. Child victims of abuse at the hands of their own parents is a serious problem.

He's charged with first degree murder and child endangerment because authorities are taking Gabriel's death seriously and minors are all involved, including the witness. There has not been an arraignment. There is clearly more to this story and we don't know the details.

JMO

I don't think the fact that the parents are teens has anything to do with the charging. I think it is because a child was murdered. Plain and simple.

 

[K_Z]

I do believe given his age and circumstances that first degree murder is overcharging for this crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding the delayed arraignment, I wonder if his attorney is trying to do some behind the scenes negotiating. We have occasionally had clients plead guilty at arraignment after negotiations with the prosecutors to avoid media attention or to keep things low key. This has usually been cases like DUI or criminal mischief, etc. Not serious cases like this.

Another reason I can think of why it might be delayed could be some sort of negotiations to keep the case in juvenile court. When we represented a mentally ill sixteen year old charged with felonious assault and attempted murder, the case moved at a snail's pace, particularly at the beginning when we were trying to keep it in juvenile court. It was very, very cut and dried, but the reason the arraignment and all subsequent stages were delayed was due to the juvenile vs. adult court fight, and trying to figure out the depth of mental illness we were dealing with. If there are signs he is mentally ill, they could be doing mental health evaluations as part of negotiating with the prosecutors, and thus, the delay.

Or there's another reason. Maybe it's not so cut and dried. Who knows?

Something that has to be given serious consideration is the state of mind of DWS. I know some posters have said they don’t care what his state of mind was, or what the circumstances were, and only want to look at the 50 min he was alone with Gabriel. I understand the urge to want to simplify the situation, and the urge to disregard all the other issues and stresses that factor into this tragic situation. Perhaps a mindset that only considers the 50 min in an isolated manner from everything else helps make it easier for some to understand how something like this could happen.

However, I think the state of mind of DWS is highly significant. I suspect his attorney will think so, too. This was not a random murder by a stranger—it was filicide. The state of mind of DWS will definitely be important if there is a jury trial, or if there are plea talks. This isn’t a hardened criminal with a yard long rap sheet. It’s a 17 year old high school junior, that irresponsibly and stupidly got a 15 year old girl pregnant. And a ton of chaos followed the 4 months after the birth of the baby. That is the reality.

We have no idea what the relationship was between DWS and MA during her pregnancy, and in the 4 months after Gabriel’s birth. We can infer that it was an extremely stressful and chaotic time for them, their families, and everyone else involved with them. There were many critically important, and emotionally laden adult decisions to be made by these 2 young teens, in a very compressed amount of time. MA states she did not discover her pregnancy until she was 5 months along.

We know DWS was still in school, which demonstrates some maturity and responsibility on the part of DWS. We do know that he was involved in the process of the adoption plan, because of public comments made by the McFarland’s attorney. Presumably that also means he acknowledged paternity, and was preparing to terminate his parental rights. Once that happened, he would not have had any ongoing financial, or other obligation to Gabriel (or MA, unless he wanted to).

Or maybe not—it’s remotely possible, however unlikely, that he never wanted to go along with the adoption plan in the first place. Maybe he and his family wanted to raise the baby, and that’s why there was a delay in terminating his parental rights. We just don’t know what the dynamic was at that point.

At the point in which the adoption was disrupted, we have no idea what his involvement or concurrence was with MA’s new plan. He may not have had any input at all, or may have felt resentful, or may have been confused and frustrated about what his obligations would be, if it was not his decision. With the adoption plan, DWS would have had no ongoing financial or parental obligations to the baby. We don’t know how he personally felt about that.

What we do know is the research on what bio-dads typically report feeling during adoption proceedings, and most bio-dads report a sense of relief of their financial and parental obligations, as well as contentment that the child would be wanted and well looked after by the adoptive parents.

In exploring birth parents’ feelings during adoption, those of birth fathers who voluntarily relinquish parental rights often tend to be dismissed. A study conducted by Whitesel (2009) found that birth fathers displayed different emotions triggered by adoptions when compared to birth mothers. Birth fathers experienced high levels of anxiety, but did not experience elevated levels of depression (Whitesel, 2009). Additionally, birth fathers’ emotions were measured according to the life impact of the adoption process. Birth fathers reported that they felt relieved afterwards, knowing that they could offer their children better life conditions with families that were emotionally, financially, and physically prepared for parenthood (Whitesel, 2009). It was also found that connectedness between the birth parents influenced their emotions during the process of adoption. Birth parents with strong and positive connections to each other experienced more positive adjustment.

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/...ets/Birth_Parents_in_the_Adoption_Process.pdf

Once MA made the decision to reclaim Gabriel and parent, DWS was in a position where he was again obligated to financially support and parent Gabriel. We don’t know how he felt about that, or what his parents felt about that. He did visit the baby and MA a few times in the 40 days she had custody of Gabriel, but I don’t know that any of us can infer that this means he was onboard fully with MA’s new plan. He may have felt extremely manipulated by the new situation he was in against his will, if he did not agree with what MA was doing. They may have even quarreled just before MA left to run errands, or things may have been blissful—at this point, we don’t have the full story. If he was frustrated or angry when MA left, that may have contributed to him impulsively hurting Gabriel. DWS has not yet been arraigned, and none of the details from the autopsy have been released.

None of this means that he is not responsible for his actions, and he will certainly answer for his part in Gabriel’s death. He is looking at life in prison, or a very long prison term. It’s not an “excuse”, but it is a statistically likely explanation for understanding what happened.

These are the kinds of issues that can, and do, get first degree murder downgraded to second degree, or less. We cannot assume everything was perfect and blissful, right up to the moment MA left Gabriel alone with DWS.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Good post.. It is not that I don't care why? It just does not matter to me because there is no good reason to kill a child. There are always other options.

I understand that this could have been something that was triggered by money but that is even worse to me. Horrific. That a human life is easier to take then paying a bill.

I hope that as more details come out we understand further.

 

[chaotic_idealism]

Maybe they did not want to have a public funeral or a death announcement? It's not a legal requirement to have those.

There seems the possibility of a "revenge killing" type infanticide here--that's a situation where one parent kills a child in order to hurt the other parent. It would have been a way for him to hurt her, if he resented that she was asking for child support or didn't like her paying attention the baby instead of him. Maybe she was the secondary target of the murder... there's nothing that will hurt a mother more than killing her child. That would explain the first-degree murder, too, if he planned this as a way to attack her.

 

[K_Z]

chaotic idealism, I wondered about that, too-- a revenge motive.

Teen girls frequently make relationship decisions based on their heart's desire, or a romanticized view of reality. She may have fantasized that they would be together as husband and wife, or at least a committed couple, raising their son together. Setting up their own household together, etc.

It's possible she took Gabriel back to try to make the relationship into something permanent, and DWS wasn't interested in playing the part of husband and father. The fact that he only visited a few times in the 40 days, and had never been left alone with Gabriel before makes me wonder what exactly was going on between them. We don't have any reports that he visited the baby while the McFarlands were parenting him.

 

[chaotic_idealism]

Not just teen girls... any woman, if she's not thinking straight. My mom, for example; her motto could be "I'm a single mom, so I just need a man and then my life will be perfect"... she hasn't been a teenager in forty years.

That's how abusive relationships start. She thinks he's perfect; then before she realizes he's not, he has her intimidated, confused, isolated.

Was this guy abusive before? No idea. I do know that killing a woman's child is about as abusive as you can get.

 

[1&2&3]

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.

 

[K_Z]

Regarding the delay in arraignment, I wondered if they were waiting for certain lab tests to be completed and returned, before the arraignment. Things like toxicology and DNA paternity can take a couple weeks, and it hasn't even been 30 days since Gabriel died, April 22. DWS was arrested April 28.

I'm not sure if DWS would have had to do a paternity test for legal purposes for the planned adoption-- I think that might be required for bio-dads to terminate parental rights. But if not, they probably need to do an official paternity DNA test as part of his trial process.

At some point, when there are serious legal issues (adoption plans, murder charges, etc), it isn't enough to take someone's word for it that they are, or are not, the bio-dad. IIRC, a forensic legal determination of paternity takes about 2 weeks. Toxicology on the baby (routine part of forensic autopsy) could also take several weeks.

I don't know if that is typical to wait for labs to do an arraignment, but it was one thought I had. Maybe AnaTeresa has some insight on this.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Regarding the delay in arraignment, I wondered if they were waiting for certain lab tests to be completed and returned, before the arraignment. Things like toxicology and DNA paternity can take a couple weeks, and it hasn't even been 30 days since Gabriel died, April 22. DWS was arrested April 28.

I'm not sure if DWS would have had to do a paternity test for legal purposes for the planned adoption-- I think that might be required for bio-dads to terminate parental rights. But if not, they probably need to do an official paternity DNA test as part of his trial process.

At some point, when there are serious legal issues (adoption plans, murder charges, etc), it isn't enough to take someone's word for it that they are, or are not, the bio-dad. IIRC, a forensic legal determination of paternity takes about 2 weeks. Toxicology on the baby (routine part of forensic autopsy) could also take several weeks.

I don't know if that is typical to wait for labs to do an arraignment, but it was one thought I had. Maybe AnaTeresa has some insight on this.

From what I've seen in my limited experience (I've been working at a criminal defense firm for three years, so if there are more seasoned attorneys here, I defer to them), it's a mixed bag. What's typical in one type of case may be atypical in another.

Arraignments can be delayed for those types of tests, but I do believe that some sort of hearing must be held to determine if a bond will be set and at what amount. A more formal arraignment can follow once that information has been obtained. But there must be some sort of hearing not long after the arrest, as criminal defendants are entitled to a speedy arraignment. What "speedy" is depends on the state - it's usually around 48 hours or so, depending on they day of the week/holidays/etc.

If a defendant has bonded out, the arraignment may be delayed weeks or months, either by prosecutors awaiting test results or by defense attorneys employing some sort of negotiation strategy. If the defendant has not bonded out, the Court will often put some pressure on the attorneys to keep things moving, unless the defendant has executed a speedy trial waiver.

I hope this helps!

 

[K_Z]

Thanks, AnaTeresa.

Very good point about the bond hearing. If he is arraigned June 16, that means he would have been arrested and in jail for 6 weeks without a bond determination, or arraignment. I'm not an expert, but that sure seems like a lot longer than I've heard of before. (How long can they hold someone under arrest without formally charging them?) Given his age, I'd think his attorney would want to move it along to those stages, and enter a plea, but perhaps it is a tactical move, as you said.

I guess at this point, the investigation is "ongoing", with formal arraignment pending. Maybe there are more charges coming, and that's why they are keeping it quiet.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think he confessed. I don't think that he would be held this long without that.

 

[K_Z]

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.

I'm a health care professional, for nearly 30 years. I have worked every area from OB to ER to ICU and flight nursing, before I went to graduate anesthesia school. I served in the military on active duty, in many different countries, and reserves after that. My point is, I've seen all ages and demographics of people in many different types of health crises.

I am fully aware that most people who call 911 in a crisis situation are panicking, and very scared and nervous. Particularly when a baby is involved! That is absolutely terrifying! It is very clear to me, listening to the 911 call, that the caller, MA's friend, is young, and very scared, panicked. As I would completely expect her to be, faced with an infant who is blue.

Most people who call 911 in a desperate crisis, or dashing into an ER, blurt out a concise summary of the immediate problem. Such as, "Help! We have a baby that isn't breathing!" or "My baby fell in the pool!" or "There is a bad car accident!" or "This man just collapsed and isn't breathing!" "My wife is in labor and the baby's coming out!" or "Help-- my husband cut his leg with a chainsaw and is bleeding to death! Etc. Something similar. Very direct and to the point.

What struck me as odd, the first time I listened to the 911 call, is the opening sentence by the friend (Siobhan, I think is her name). It's almost like she is giving too many extraneous details in her first words to the dispatcher, rather than getting right to the point that the baby is blue, probably isn't breathing, and needs help right away.

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?
(CNN appears to have snipped the address)
Dispatch: What is the apartment number?
(unintelligible)
Dispatch: How old is the baby?
Caller: How old is he? He's, like almost 4 months
Dispatch: Ok, you need to get him on his back

(call continues, with guided CPR.)

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/05/01/mcfarland-gabriel-911-call-baby-murder-adoption-reverse

So, the first sentence I bolded above is what has been bugging me. "Somebody" is a really odd way to refer to someone she certainly knew, the baby's dad. Why not just say, his dad left the baby alone, and he's blue? She is the one who says she saw him alone with the baby and called Markeya, so she knows who he is. Why be so obtuse?? A person's first instinct is not usually to obfuscate the identity of someone they clearly know, when calling 911. Third person is not a instinctive way to speak, for fluent English speakers.

"Somebody left my friend's baby that they were babysitting by themselves...and the baby's blue... and..."

That is just a really, really odd way to begin a 911 call. Even assuming the young girl was terrified. It's too much extraneous information in the face of an absolute crisis-- the baby is blue. It would be interesting to see if a statement analysis expert thinks this is unusual, or just the result of a terrified teenager.

Maybe it means absolutely nothing at all. My intention is not to pick on a scared teenager. It's just so completely unusual, that it has stuck in my head since I first heard it. It's just a really, really odd way to tell a 911 operator that a baby is in crisis, not breathing, etc. At that point, who really cares who was babysitting, or if they were alone or not??

My sense, from the first time I heard this is that there is just too much "set up", or background information, before we even find out the baby is blue and isn't breathing. It would be like someone calling 911, and saying, "Me and my family were going to our friend's house for dinner, and she grilled hamburgers, and they have a pool, and our baby is in the bottom of the pool in the deep end." That's the best way I can explain it.

(Ducking for cover.)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

I'm a health care professional, for nearly 30 years. I have worked every area from OB to ER to ICU and flight nursing, before I went to graduate anesthesia school. I served in the military on active duty, in many different countries, and reserves after that. My point is, I've seen all ages and demographics of people in many different types of health crises.

I am fully aware that most people who call 911 in a crisis situation are panicking, and very scared and nervous. Particularly when a baby is involved! That is absolutely terrifying! It is very clear to me, listening to the 911 call, that the caller, MA's friend, is young, and very scared, panicked. As I would completely expect her to be, faced with an infant who is blue.

Most people who call 911 in a desperate crisis, or dashing into an ER, blurt out a concise summary of the immediate problem. Such as, "Help! We have a baby that isn't breathing!" or "My baby fell in the pool!" or "There is a bad car accident!" or "This man just collapsed and isn't breathing!" "My wife is in labor and the baby's coming out!" or "Help-- my husband cut his leg with a chainsaw and is bleeding to death! Etc. Something similar. Very direct and to the point.

What struck me as odd, the first time I listened to the 911 call, is the opening sentence by the friend (Siobhan, I think is her name). It's almost like she is giving too many extraneous details in her first words to the dispatcher, rather than getting right to the point that the baby is blue, probably isn't breathing, and needs help right away.

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?
(CNN appears to have snipped the address)
Dispatch: What is the apartment number?
(unintelligible)
Dispatch: How old is the baby?
Caller: How old is he? He's, like almost 4 months
Dispatch: Ok, you need to get him on his back

(call continues, with guided CPR.)

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/05/01/mcfarland-gabriel-911-call-baby-murder-adoption-reverse

So, the first sentence I bolded above is what has been bugging me. "Somebody" is a really odd way to refer to someone she certainly knew, the baby's dad. Why not just say, his dad left the baby alone, and he's blue? She is the one who says she saw him alone with the baby and called Markeya, so she knows who he is. Why be so obtuse?? A person's first instinct is not usually to obfuscate the identity of someone they clearly know, when calling 911. Third person is not a instinctive way to speak, for fluent English speakers.

"Somebody left my friend's baby that they were babysitting by themselves...and the baby's blue... and..."

That is just a really, really odd way to begin a 911 call. Even assuming the young girl was terrified. It's too much extraneous information in the face of an absolute crisis-- the baby is blue. It would be interesting to see if a statement analysis expert thinks this is unusual, or just the result of a terrified teenager.

Maybe it means absolutely nothing at all. My intention is not to pick on a scared teenager. It's just so completely unusual, that it has stuck in my head since I first heard it. It's just a really, really odd way to tell a 911 operator that a baby is in crisis, not breathing, etc. At that point, who really cares who was babysitting, or if they were alone or not??

My sense, from the first time I heard this is that there is just too much "set up", or background information, before we even find out the baby is blue and isn't breathing. It would be like someone calling 911, and saying, "Me and my family were going to our friend's house for dinner, and she grilled hamburgers, and they have a pool, and our baby is in the bottom of the pool in the deep end." That's the best way I can explain it.

(Ducking for cover.)

No flaming but that does not struck me as odd.

Stress from scary situation can make people do all kinds of things. Like the woman who found her son's decapitated body and actually laughed on the 911 call.

I think they were young and just trying to get help there. You hear Markeya wailing in the background and the friends is absolutely upset and still trying to help the baby..

 

[MyBelle]

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.

I'm a health care professional, for nearly 30 years. I have worked every area from OB to ER to ICU and flight nursing, before I went to graduate anesthesia school. I served in the military on active duty, in many different countries, and reserves after that. My point is, I've seen all ages and demographics of people in many different types of health crises.

I am fully aware that most people who call 911 in a crisis situation are panicking, and very scared and nervous. Particularly when a baby is involved! That is absolutely terrifying! It is very clear to me, listening to the 911 call, that the caller, MA's friend, is young, and very scared, panicked. As I would completely expect her to be, faced with an infant who is blue.

Most people who call 911 in a desperate crisis, or dashing into an ER, blurt out a concise summary of the immediate problem. Such as, "Help! We have a baby that isn't breathing!" or "My baby fell in the pool!" or "There is a bad car accident!" or "This man just collapsed and isn't breathing!" "My wife is in labor and the baby's coming out!" or "Help-- my husband cut his leg with a chainsaw and is bleeding to death! Etc. Something similar. Very direct and to the point.

What struck me as odd, the first time I listened to the 911 call, is the opening sentence by the friend (Siobhan, I think is her name). It's almost like she is giving too many extraneous details in her first words to the dispatcher, rather than getting right to the point that the baby is blue, probably isn't breathing, and needs help right away.

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?
(CNN appears to have snipped the address)
Dispatch: What is the apartment number?
(unintelligible)
Dispatch: How old is the baby?
Caller: How old is he? He's, like almost 4 months
Dispatch: Ok, you need to get him on his back

(call continues, with guided CPR.)

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/05/01/mcfarland-gabriel-911-call-baby-murder-adoption-reverse

So, the first sentence I bolded above is what has been bugging me. "Somebody" is a really odd way to refer to someone she certainly knew, the baby's dad. Why not just say, his dad left the baby alone, and he's blue? She is the one who says she saw him alone with the baby and called Markeya, so she knows who he is. Why be so obtuse?? A person's first instinct is not usually to obfuscate the identity of someone they clearly know, when calling 911. Third person is not a instinctive way to speak, for fluent English speakers.

"Somebody left my friend's baby that they were babysitting by themselves...and the baby's blue... and..."

That is just a really, really odd way to begin a 911 call. Even assuming the young girl was terrified. It's too much extraneous information in the face of an absolute crisis-- the baby is blue. It would be interesting to see if a statement analysis expert thinks this is unusual, or just the result of a terrified teenager.

Maybe it means absolutely nothing at all. My intention is not to pick on a scared teenager. It's just so completely unusual, that it has stuck in my head since I first heard it. It's just a really, really odd way to tell a 911 operator that a baby is in crisis, not breathing, etc. At that point, who really cares who was babysitting, or if they were alone or not??

My sense, from the first time I heard this is that there is just too much "set up", or background information, before we even find out the baby is blue and isn't breathing. It would be like someone calling 911, and saying, "Me and my family were going to our friend's house for dinner, and she grilled hamburgers, and they have a pool, and our baby is in the bottom of the pool in the deep end." That's the best way I can explain it.

(Ducking for cover.)

ITA. A HUGE RED FLAG there is more to the story.

 

[tlcya]

chiming in on this one. :twocents:

I am glad you asked the question because honestly, it DID catch my eye the other day when reading it transcribed. But in context, the girls seemed very angry and shocked that the baby had been left by itself and so that was part of the narrative between the two girls as the call was being made perhaps. Also, if the caller had stated the baby is not breathing and looks funny with foamy stuff around his mouth, the 911 operator may have then asked, has the baby had anything to eat or drink? (thinking poison)

I am thinking since at the time no one knew WHAT the baby's medical crisis was caused by, just that there was one, the friend who placed the 911 call wanted to make sure the 911 operator knew that the baby was alone when they arrived and therefore they will not have answers to any questions like that.

But yes, it DID strike me as odd and I spent some time thinking about why, aside from the panic and youth of the situation, this info may have been given at the onset of the call.

 

[al66pine]

Have not listened to 911 call here, but... reminds me of several other cases over the years (from true crime books, Dateline, etc .) in which a person calling FIRST says to 911 dispatcher, something like ---

I was away all weekend (or visiting my mother two hours away, or doing a double shift at work, etc) and when I got home...
THEN
I found (name of loved one) shot (dead, bleeding, stabbed, tied up w duct tape, foaming at the mouth, unconscious, hanging in the garage, underneath the cars' back wheels, etc ).

I remember ~five cases w 911 calls along this line, where the person calling turned out to be the perp.
Extraneous info, purporting to give an alibi or otherwise deflect guilt or blame.

That said, possible the friend deliberately avoided saying boyfriend/father or giving his name to divert attention from his involvement.

Or possible she just plain forgot his name.

Yes, K_Z, agreed, her saying "somebody" does catch my attention.

Poor little Baby Gabriel.