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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because she is most likely guilty.

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

That is a fact.

You have presented no facts. Typing the word "fact" after your statement does not make it so.

You are entitled to your opinion and I will debate you on it if you are able to come back to me with solid points. I will be happy to concede to any evidence that points to her guilt, as soon as I see any that is. You've obviously made up your mind and I get the feeling that whatever arguments or evidence are presented to you, you won't change it.

Why and how can you be so sure of her guilt? How is she "most likely guilty"? Exactly what evidence points to that at this stage? I'm genuinely asking because you seem pretty convinced but I've researched and researched and I just can't find the evidence that others seem to have.
 
Last edited:
Tssiemer said:
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.

From what I remember - didn't she burn a candle for the baby and that was the "soot" that was near the burial? For some reason I remember this.
 
You have presented no facts. Typing the word "fact" after your statement does not make it so.

You are entitled to your opinion and I will debate you on it if you are able to come back to me with solid points. I will be happy to concede to any evidence that points to her guilt, as soon as I see any that is. You've obviously made up your mind and I get the feeling that whatever arguments or evidence are presented to you, you won't change it.

Why and how can you be so sure of her guilt? How is she "most likely guilty"? Exactly what evidence points to that at this stage? I'm genuinely asking because you seem pretty convinced but I've researched and researched and I just can't find the evidence that others seem to have.

In Ohio, There is a Safe Haven law which means she could have dropped the child off at a gas station, fire department etc. No questions asked.

She could have chosen adoption

Numerous options
 
In Ohio, There is a Safe Haven law which means she could have dropped the child off at a gas station, fire department etc. No questions asked.

She could have chosen adoption

Numerous options

I'm aware of that, but you're asserting she is guilty. If the baby was in fact still born or born non responsive these were not options for her.

I've asked numerous times for the evidence on which you have not been forthcoming.
 
I'm aware of that, but you're asserting she is guilty. If the baby was in fact still born or born non responsive these were not options for her.

I've asked numerous times for the evidence on which you have not been forthcoming.




Go look up articles about it. You will find numerous ones that state the baby was born alive and not stillborn.

She gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
 
Go look up articles about it. You will find numerous ones that state the baby was born alive and not stillborn.

She gave birth to a healthy baby girl.

I have looked at pretty much all of the articles, i still don't see any evidence that baby was born healthy and murdered. Only the prosecutor stating that she murdered and burned her baby, which we now know not to be true. I have said previously that it is possible the baby was born alive, babies born alive and unresponsive can appear lifeless. A team of medical professionals in a hospital had trouble detecting my son's heartbeat. I have presented a number of scenarios in which baby could have been born alive and passed shortly after, placenta complications, cord prolapse, lack of oxygen, blood loss, head injury from birthing on a hard surface...i could continue.

I have asked a number of times for you to reason why you feel how you do based on the evidence and you haven't given me a response. As i said earlier, I'm happy to converse with anyone regardless of differing opinion and i will concede to any evidence that proves her guilt. I'm getting dizzy...
 
I have looked at pretty much all of the articles, i still don't see any evidence that baby was born healthy and murdered. Only the prosecutor stating that she murdered and burned her baby, which we now know not to be true. I have said previously that it is possible the baby was born alive, babies born alive and unresponsive can appear lifeless. A team of medical professionals in a hospital had trouble detecting my son's heartbeat. I have presented a number of scenarios in which baby could have been born alive and passed shortly after, placenta complications, cord prolapse, lack of oxygen, blood loss, head injury from birthing on a hard surface...i could continue.

I have asked a number of times for you to reason why you feel how you do based on the evidence and you haven't given me a response. As i said earlier, I'm happy to converse with anyone regardless of differing opinion and i will concede to any evidence that proves her guilt. I'm getting dizzy...

I'm not the prosecution but obviously they had enough evidence for a grand jury to indict her on murder charges etc.
 
I'm not the prosecution but obviously they had enough evidence for a grand jury to indict her on murder charges etc.

Right, but at least some of this evidence has now been recanted...

We're going round in circles. I will wait until the trial to see what evidence both sides have and to hear Brooke speak for herself. I am not asserting her guilt or her innocence. I'm interested to see how the prosecution will convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt that baby was murdered, when they don't even have a cause of death and have readily admitted they may never know it.
 
Last edited:
Because she is most likely guilty.

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

That is a fact.
Yep. We've discussed and discussed this option, and it is legit, confidential and safe. If the baby did have problems during & after labor and birth, mom could have taken the baby to a police, hospital, fire station, etc., and walked away. She had to know that option. She had nearly 9 months to put a plan together. Period. She could have left it at a college infirmary, too -- maybe not an official "baby safe" place, IDK, and if not they should be, but the baby would have received whatever care it needed, and the infirmary could have made a call to A Safe Place, EMS, or LE, and the baby would have gotten good care.
Nope, no "not guilty" for her, IMHO.
Panic is one thing -- murder of a newborn is another.
 
Right, but at least some of this evidence has now been recanted...

We're going round in circles. I will wait until the trial to see what evidence both sides have and to hear Brooke speak for herself. I am not asserting her guilt or her innocence. I'm interested to see how the prosecution will convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt that baby was murdered, when they don't even have a cause of death and have readily admitted they may never know it.
The baby had “unexplained skull fractures.” I am sure that frequently happens with stillborn babies. SMH


Prosecutor calls Skylar Richardson’s motion to dismiss indictment ‘groundless’
 
Last edited:
You have presented no facts. Typing the word "fact" after your statement does not make it so.

You are entitled to your opinion and I will debate you on it if you are able to come back to me with solid points. I will be happy to concede to any evidence that points to her guilt, as soon as I see any that is. You've obviously made up your mind and I get the feeling that whatever arguments or evidence are presented to you, you won't change it.

Why and how can you be so sure of her guilt? How is she "most likely guilty"? Exactly what evidence points to that at this stage? I'm genuinely asking because you seem pretty convinced but I've researched and researched and I just can't find the evidence that others seem to have.

Maybe you could explain how a stillborn baby had “unexplained skull fractures.”


Many, many people would have been ecstatic to have the opportunity to adopt a healthy newborn baby girl. Fact.
 
Maybe you could explain how a stillborn baby had “unexplained skull fractures.”


Many, many people would have been ecstatic to have the opportunity to adopt a healthy newborn baby girl. Fact.

I have. In detail. And i posted links. You need to read the whole thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
95
Guests online
2,600
Total visitors
2,695

Forum statistics

Threads
590,009
Messages
17,928,905
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top