OH - Annabelle Richardson, newborn, found in shallow grave, Carlisle, 7 May 2017 #2

[princessdana]

I don't recall that during Dr. Latham's testimony. What I do remember(and now just watched on court tv) is that she said all the alterations, fractures and punctures, to the bones were postmortem.

thank you for clearing that up

 

[AllyBeeUK]

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!

Excellent post, I agree on all points. I'm interested in what you say about burning. I have read that she says at some point during the second interview (although I haven't yet seen it) that she held a lighter to the baby's foot and flames flared up to it's chest...as soon as I read that it didn't ring true. Human flesh does not catch fire like that. I'm not suggesting that anyone try this, but if you held a lighter to your foot, you would end up with a nasty but localised burn, you wouldn't go up in flames. Not unless you have been doused in some kind of flammable liquid and there is no suggestion that that happened here. Also, the smell of burning flesh is putrid. Not only would it have woken her parents and most of the neighbours but it would definitely have upset the dogs. I have no idea why the prosecution publicised the burning so widely prior to trial and unfortunately in doing so, I think they may have destroyed their own case.

Of course it is possible that she caused the death through intent or neglect, I just don't think the evidence is there to prove it. I don't believe for a second that the baby was burned.

 

[iluvmua]

Damn! She is a good liar jmo
Said the placenta came out after the baby

 

[MTW2011]

I saw someone else say that Skylar’s parents had asked about the remains, when they could have them back, for a proper burial. Now I see the female detective using that, saying that she can be returned, only after they know “the truth”. Wow.

 

[Gardenista]

OMG, I want to reach through the screen and slug these detectives. This is one of the most evil things I've ever seen.

 

[stmarysmead]

As to the detectives withholding the babies bones, when exactly did Skylar start having such an emotional attachment to the remains? Not when she buried her the first time. When did her parents? I heard no emotion about “the baby” from either of them.

Getting the bones back is now a face saving exercise for them all. This baby was never much cared about by anyone. I doubt the threat from the police to withhold them caused one tear from any of them.

Why would Skylar care now about getting back a child she desperately did not want in the first place?

 

[princessdana]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't like any of the detectives in the interrogation room. The one guys voice and how he talks really annoy me. I can't even watch it

 

[osu]

“I didn’t kill her on purpose...I loved her.”

Less than 30 min into the second interview, Skylar Richardson admits to police she may have squeezed her baby too hard. But she promises she did not burn the body.

#skylarrichardson #richardsontrial @CourtTV @ChanleyCourtTV

Julia Jenaé on Twitter

 

[osu]

Detective: Tell us about the fire.

Richardson: What fire?...

I didn’t burn her…that I am sure of…


#BrookeSkylarRichardson #OHvRichardson #CourtTV #SkylarRichardson


Chanley Shá Painter on Twitter

 

[osu]

2 seconds ago

Faine and Carter are questioning Skylar Richardson about the fire she says she set to Annebelle. Richardson says she used dirt to help get flames out after she says changed her mind about burning her @wlwt

Karin Johnson WLWT on Twitter

 

[Boodles]

“I didn’t kill her on purpose...I loved her.”

Less than 30 min into the second interview, Skylar Richardson admits to police she may have squeezed her baby too hard. But she promises she did not burn the body.

#skylarrichardson #richardsontrial @CourtTV @ChanleyCourtTV

Julia Jenaé on Twitter

Where did you find that interview, please? TIA!

 

[Hope4More]

She did NOT burn that baby. She was horrified they thought she did, clearly baffled how it could be they had evidence of something she hadn't done, and was spoon fed the details of that part of her "confession."

 

[osu]

Tapes: Investigators keep asking about the fire, Skylar says she tried to light it in the burial hole. Carter asks if flames went up to baby's chest. Skylar says "Maybe I don’t know, I tried to get it out."
#SkylarRichardson @dayton247now


Tapes: Investigators ask how Skylar put the fire out and she says she used dirt. She says she buried placenta after.

#SkylarRichardson @dayton247now

Molly Reed on Twitter

 

[iluvmua]

She did NOT burn that baby. She was horrified they thought she did, clearly baffled how it could be they had evidence of something she hadn't done, and was spoon fed the details that part of her "confession."

She is being manipulative.

 

[osu]

Where did you find that interview, please? TIA!

It’s a tweet. Here’s the link.
Julia Jenaé on Twitter

 

[osu]

Where did you find that interview, please? TIA!

Julia Jenaé on Twitter

 

[osu]

Skylar Richardson: I think she made a noise, maybe a gurgle.

And I didn’t hear it again. @wlwt

Karin Johnson WLWT on Twitter

 

[osu]

One juror has head in hands as if frustrated with what she’s hearing as the detective asks Skylar about signs of life…if the baby’s arms were moving

#BrookeSkylarRichardson #OHvRichardson #CourtTV #SkylarRichardson

Chanley Shá Painter on Twitter

 

[Hope4More]

She is being manipulative.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm also very willing to bet that at least some of the jurors are going to think she didn't either, and that's going to be a problem for the State.

 

[osu]

#SkylarRichardson "She may have moved but I didn’t look right away" in response to further questioning @Local12

Angenette Levy on Twitter