OH - Annabelle Richardson, newborn, found in shallow grave, Carlisle, 7 May 2017 #1

[iluvmua]

I disagree, i have been through 2 full term pregnancies. She does not look full term pregnant. Even if she does, i don't see how this is evidence of guilt? If she was going to murder her baby, surely she would have gone to great lengths to hide her pregnancy rather than flaunting it? She had seen an OBGYN, she knew that at least one person knew she was pregnant and would want to know what had happened to the baby.

Let's say that she does look pregnant in the prom photo, why would this need pointing out to a jury. If it's so obvious they will be able to see it for themselves. I can't. For what reason would the prosecution make a point of it? What does it prove? Other than she wasn't ashamed or trying to hide her condition. For someone who was apparently so concerned about appearances that she was prepared to kill her new born baby in cold blood, it doesn't make any sense that she would flaunt a pregnancy of which she is so ashamed.

I've no idea what evidence the prosecution or defence have but I don't see any evidence currently in the public domain that shows that she killed her baby. I won't join a witch hunt. For the time being at least, i give her the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying she is innocent, i don't know, i wasn't there. But, i have asked here and on many other forums what evidence people have seen that even proves a live birth, let alone a murder and no-one has an answer other than the statement by the prosecutor that has since been retracted. I'm really struggling to understand the mentality surrounding this case...It's tragic that a baby has died, whatever the circumstances. I have two kids and any crime involving children or babies breaks my heart but she deserves a fair hearing.

She did see an OBGYN and her doctor and when informed of being pregnant, she never went back to follow up appointments.

Since they have charged her with aggrevated murder among several other charges that right there suggests that she killed her baby.

If she was not guilty then WHY are her attorneys trying to continue to delay and get her charges dismissed?

She also made statements to her parents at the police station when she thought the cameras were off.

 

[Rosegold68]

what did she say to her parents?

 

[iluvmua]

what did she say to her parents?

I don't know.

 

[AllyBeeUK]

She did see an OBGYN and her doctor and when informed of being pregnant, she never went back to follow up appointments.

Since they have charged her with aggrevated murder among several other charges that right there suggests that she killed her baby.

If she was not guilty then WHY are her attorneys trying to continue to delay and get her charges dismissed?

She also made statements to her parents at the police station when she thought the cameras were off.

Because it's their job, maybe they think she is innocent and believe that she shouldn't be dragged through the courts for suffering a still birth. Nobody, knows what she said to her parents or how these statements will be presented in court. Charges do not equal guilt, plenty of people are charged with crimes they did not commit. That's why they go to trial.

Once again, I do not know whether she is innocent or guilty but I will give her benefit of the doubt until she has been to trial. I am aware that she did not go back for follow up appointments, that was not my point. She knew that at least one other person knew she was pregnant and would want to know what happened to the baby.

I'm perplexed about the reaction to this case. One of two things has happened here, either an innocent baby has been murdered or a young girl has suffered the trauma and devastation of a still-birth, and is being accused of murder. Both of those scenarios are unspeakably tragic, which is why I can't and won't take any sides until the trial is complete.

 

[iluvmua]

Because it's their job, maybe they think she is innocent and believe that she shouldn't be dragged through the courts for suffering a still birth. Nobody, knows what she said to her parents or how these statements will be presented in court. Charges do not equal guilt, plenty of people are charged with crimes they did not commit. That's why they go to trial.

Once again, I do not know whether she is innocent or guilty but I will give her benefit of the doubt until she has been to trial. I am aware that she did not go back for follow up appointments, that was not my point. She knew that at least one other person knew she was pregnant and would want to know what happened to the baby.

I'm perplexed about the reaction to this case. One of two things has happened here, either an innocent baby has been murdered or a young girl has suffered the trauma and devastation of a still-birth, and is being accused of murder. Both of those scenarios are unspeakably tragic, which is why I can't and won't take any sides until the trial is complete.

So she gets pregnant and she just happens to give birth to a stillborn baby?

That only accounts for 1 percent of all births.

 

[YESorNO]

In emails, witness in Carlisle buried baby case talks about change in opinion (with clip)

August 02, 2019

"WARREN COUNTY — Attorneys for a Carlisle woman accused of killing her newborn baby girl in 2017 and burying her in her parents’ backyard want the charges against her dismissed.

A motion filed Thursday by attorneys Charles H. and Charles M. Rittgers argues the indictment against Brooke Skylar Richardson should be dismissed due to “defects in the institution of prosecution of this case … the state’s deprivation of Miss Richardson’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process.”

The motion is also asking for grand jury testimony to be reviewed “in camera” or by a judge and attorneys, specifically that of forensic anthropologist Dr. Elizabeth Murray, who examined the remains of the baby girl when they were unearthed....

Another pre-trial hearing is set for Aug. 19 ahead of Richardson’s scheduled trial on Sept. 3."

https://www.whio.com/news/crime--la...-about-change-opinion/OK6ci9keljQlnscOHZy4qI/

 

[Niner]

from the article YESorNO posted - caught my eye on this paragraph & my bold.

“I even said to them, whether the bone was burned or not, that baby was still dead, had unexplained skull fractures, and was buried in the back yard,” Murray wrote to Allen. “I don’t understand why the burning takes it up a notch. They told me it’s all about what she said at one time or another and how her story changed. Well that’s their problem, I guess I am sorry if I spoke out of turn, but it was my strong feeling the bones were burned in July and then less so in August - which is perhaps some basis for always doing a second look. If we only had time.”

 

[AllyBeeUK]

So she gets pregnant and she just happens to give birth to a stillborn baby?

That only accounts for 1 percent of all births.

24,000 women get pregnant every year in the US, and give birth to still born babies. That is not an insignificant number.

It may also be possible that baby died shortly after birth due to complications, perhaps she was born not breathing.

Vasa Previa is an extremely rare placental condition which carries a still birth risk of 56%. I had it in both of my pregnancies, how wild is that?! Had I had my babies at home, neither of them would have survived. My condition was not diagnosed during my 1st pregnancy and was discovered by pure chance during my 2nd. But for the Grace of God, I was very nearly one of that 1% my 9 year old is desperately lucky to be here.

The article above states that they may not ever know the cause of the baby's death. In that case, I'm interested to know how they are going to go about proving she caused the unknown cause of death??

If she was indicted by a grand jury based on evidence that has now been recanted then it is my belief that the charges should be dismissed. I'm from the UK and I'm not sure exactly how the system works in the US but if the prosecution have evidence beyond that which has been recanted, could she be indicted again? In the UK the charges would most likely be dropped but she could be arrested and charged again based on new evidence.

 

[AllyBeeUK]

With regards to the article posted above by YESORNO; skull fractures can be caused by a difficult or prolonged delivery. Infant skulls are very soft, bones are not fused together until after 12 months...

I don't know the circumstances of the birth but I have read elsewhere that she woke needing to urinate, if she gave birth on the toilet or onto a hard bathroom floor it is not only possible, but highly likely that a head injury would occur.

The prosecution better have an ace up their sleeve, because so far I haven't seen a single thing that has me convinced of her guilt.

http://www.cerebralpalsysymptoms.com/birth-injury/skull-fracture/causes

 

[Jewels53]

Here is a good article stating how she hid the pregnancy while the family thought she was doing good fighting the eating disorder she suffered from.

Family Sheds New Light On Brooke Skylar Richardson Case

 

[iluvmua]

The defense wants the jury to come to brooke's house and see the crime scene according to cincinnati.com.

 

[iluvmua]

24,000 women get pregnant every year in the US, and give birth to still born babies. That is not an insignificant number.

It may also be possible that baby died shortly after birth due to complications, perhaps she was born not breathing.

Vasa Previa is an extremely rare placental condition which carries a still birth risk of 56%. I had it in both of my pregnancies, how wild is that?! Had I had my babies at home, neither of them would have survived. My condition was not diagnosed during my 1st pregnancy and was discovered by pure chance during my 2nd. But for the Grace of God, I was very nearly one of that 1% my 9 year old is desperately lucky to be here.

The article above states that they may not ever know the cause of the baby's death. In that case, I'm interested to know how they are going to go about proving she caused the unknown cause of death??

If she was indicted by a grand jury based on evidence that has now been recanted then it is my belief that the charges should be dismissed. I'm from the UK and I'm not sure exactly how the system works in the US but if the prosecution have evidence beyond that which has been recanted, could she be indicted again? In the UK the charges would most likely be dropped but she could be arrested and charged again based on new evidence.

She did not recant she said she was not 100 percent sure the baby was burned.

 

[YESorNO]

The defense wants the jury to come to brooke's house and see the crime scene according to cincinnati.com.

Brooke Skylar Richardson case: Defense lawyers want jury to come to her house

Aug. 8, 2019

"LEBANON, Ohio – Attorneys for Brooke Skylar Richardson, who is accused of killing and burying her baby in the backyard of her home, have filed a motion requesting that the jurors be allowed to view her home.

They write that “all the material facts in the case” occurred at her Carlisle home and the jury should be permitted to view that residence.

Attorneys, Charlie H. and Charlie M Rittgers and Neal D. Schuett, who has been newly added to the defense team recently, say they want jurors to see the bathroom where she gave birth and the path she took from her bathroom to the garage and then finally the burial site outside.

Photographs won't convey the locations and directions like a trip to the house, they said.

They estimate that this viewing will only add three hours to the trial.

The pre-trial hearing in the Richardson case is on Aug. 19 at 9 am in Judge Donald Oda’s courtroom. The trial is scheduled to start Sept. 3. "

Brooke Skylar Richardson case: Defense lawyers want jury to come to her house

 

[AllyBeeUK]

She did not recant she said she was not 100 percent sure the baby was burned.

Dr. Elizabeth Murray has recanted the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury, upon which Brooke Richardson was indicted. This is a fact that has been widely reported.

Defense asks for dismissal of Carlisle buried baby case

Dr. Krista Latham Forensic Anthropologist stated there were "no signs of burning" and furthermore that she saw no evidence of trauma "that could be related to the cause of death for this individual."

Yahoo is now part of Oath


I'm curious as to why people are so desperate for her to be guilty. Clinging to the assertion that the baby was burned, despite the fact that there is no longer any evidence to support this, proves that the prosecutor's reckless statement has jeopardised Miss Richardson's right to a fair trial. It was also David Fornshell who asserted the involvement of Brooke Richardson's parents, to date there is no evidence of such involvement hence no charges have been filed against them.

 

[iluvmua]

Dr. Elizabeth Murray has recanted the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury, upon which Brooke Richardson was indicted. This is a fact that has been widely reported.

Defense asks for dismissal of Carlisle buried baby case

Dr. Krista Latham Forensic Anthropologist stated there were "no signs of burning" and furthermore that she saw no evidence of trauma "that could be related to the cause of death for this individual."

Yahoo is now part of Oath


I'm curious as to why people are so desperate for her to be guilty. Clinging to the assertion that the baby was burned, despite the fact that there is no longer any evidence to support this, proves that the prosecutor's reckless statement has jeopardised Miss Richardson's right to a fair trial. It was also David Fornshell who asserted the involvement of Brooke Richardson's parents, to date there is no evidence of such involvement hence no charges have been filed against them.

Because she is most likely guilty.

She had numerous options if she did not want this child.

That is a fact.

 

[beatrixpotter]

When I think about it it doesn't even make any sense that she would burn the baby. I mean she is burying the baby in the yard. She's hiding the evidence. WHERE would she have even started a fire?! You don't start a fire in the yard when you are hiding the fact that you are even in the yard and burying something in it. And you can't just burn stuff in your house with any sort of ease let alone an infant. You sure as hell can't do it as a teenager with all your family members around. Was there the slightest evidence of a bonfire in the yard anywhere?

 

[beatrixpotter]

Because she is most likely guilty.

She had numerous options if she did not want this child.

That is a fact.

Yes, she did have other options. I'm not sure about lots. I can only think of 3. None of that actually proves she killed her baby though.

 

[beatrixpotter]

I don't know if she actually killed her baby or not. But if they lied and slandered and irrevocably swayed public opinion then they helped prevent her being properly convicted. I'm pretty horrified and disgusted that they would accuse her of burning her baby with no evidence to substantiate that.

 

[Tssiemer]

I don't know if she actually killed her baby or not. But if they lied and slandered and irrevocably swayed public opinion then they helped prevent her being properly convicted. I'm pretty horrified and disgusted that they would accuse her of burning her baby with no evidence to substantiate that.

I think I can speak on this.

There was black stuff on the body. ME thought it was soot. From what I know the body was pretty decomposed. Then after further examination it was determined to not be soot or char... well actually to be inconclusive. So the ME back peddled.

ETA: Or I don’t even think she was the ME. I think she was just on the team to forensically analyze the body.

 

[Tssiemer]

I’m going to put it out there, if CA can get off I think Brooke has a decent shot due to reasonable doubt.