GUILTY NV - Randi Ardon, 2 mos, body found burned, Sparks, 6 March 2011
- Thread starter MorenoI
- Start date
Flutterby80
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,796
- Reaction score
- 24
It doesn't make any sense. Nobody torches a baby who they believe died from natural causes, especially when they are on record as being terminally ill. I believe this scenero can be discounted right out of the gate. What does that leave us with? Mom either thought the baby was dead because she intentionally or negligently did something to cause her death, or mom knowingly burned her living, breathing baby. Either one of those scenerios adds up to murder charges to me. There are different levels of legal murder, and she needs to be charged with one of them. IMO.
What an unfair hand this poor baby was dealt. Life is not fair.
What an unfair hand this poor baby was dealt. Life is not fair.
As I already posted above, I am not sure why they are calling it a "terminal" condition at all. Most children in this condition survive through infancy and if they do, their life expectancy is 18 + years. Of course what is their quality of life is another question, but I don't think this condition should be called terminal. Of course it sounds like someone in that condition would need constant care. But unless this child's condition was more severe than of average person with this syndrome, presumably she could have lived for years and years.
MorenoI
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 32
I believe the same thing. She knew that this child would require constant care, she was alone, and I believe she thought she had killed the baby so she had to get rid of her body.......I believe it was no accident. JMO
LCoastMom
JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE MARIE - STILL WAITING
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 7,517
- Reaction score
- 40
According to police on March 6, 26-year-old Suceli Ardon took her 3-month-old daughter's body in a field in Sparks before burning it because she panicked when the baby stopped breathing.
Police say the baby girl, who was named Randi, suffered from severe congenital health problems and wasn't expected to live long after being released from the hospital to her mother's care in mid-February. She was expected to be in out-patient hospice care, though it's not clear whether that care had begun.
In a tearful interview with police, Ardon said she was giving the baby her medication March 6 when the infant stopped breathing.
"She told us she basically panicked," says Sparks Detective Sergeant John Franz, "and she took some steps because, as she said, she thought she would be in trouble."
Franz says Ardon told them she wrapped the baby in plastic and drove to a location in Spanish Springs that she knew well, making a few stops along the way.
"Those locations included a business to pick up a gas can, a service station and another business to pick up some matches."
Placing the bag in the field, she lit a match and set the body on fire.
Although the autopsy confirms the baby was dead before her body was set on fire, no cause of death has been determined. Franz says there was no evidence of physical trauma.
More at link:
http://www.kolotv.com/news/headlines/Sparks_Police_Mother_set_fire_to_Infant__118492419.html?ref=419
So this article claims Brandi (who they called Randi) was dead before being set on fire, while previous reports said she inhaled smoke which would mean she was alive. No evidence of physical trauma - to a body that had been burned and left in a field for two weeks???
Why would the parent of a terminally ill baby panic when the child passed unless she knew she had done something wrong?
This woman thinks much more clearly in a panic than I do...she made three separate stops for the gas can, the gas and the matches - she not only burned her baby but the gas can and the baby's medicine too.
My BS meter tells me this <<unusual person>> gave her baby an intentional overdose and was attempting to save her own backside.
Police say the baby girl, who was named Randi, suffered from severe congenital health problems and wasn't expected to live long after being released from the hospital to her mother's care in mid-February. She was expected to be in out-patient hospice care, though it's not clear whether that care had begun.
In a tearful interview with police, Ardon said she was giving the baby her medication March 6 when the infant stopped breathing.
"She told us she basically panicked," says Sparks Detective Sergeant John Franz, "and she took some steps because, as she said, she thought she would be in trouble."
Franz says Ardon told them she wrapped the baby in plastic and drove to a location in Spanish Springs that she knew well, making a few stops along the way.
"Those locations included a business to pick up a gas can, a service station and another business to pick up some matches."
Placing the bag in the field, she lit a match and set the body on fire.
Although the autopsy confirms the baby was dead before her body was set on fire, no cause of death has been determined. Franz says there was no evidence of physical trauma.
More at link:
http://www.kolotv.com/news/headlines/Sparks_Police_Mother_set_fire_to_Infant__118492419.html?ref=419
So this article claims Brandi (who they called Randi) was dead before being set on fire, while previous reports said she inhaled smoke which would mean she was alive. No evidence of physical trauma - to a body that had been burned and left in a field for two weeks???
Why would the parent of a terminally ill baby panic when the child passed unless she knew she had done something wrong?
This woman thinks much more clearly in a panic than I do...she made three separate stops for the gas can, the gas and the matches - she not only burned her baby but the gas can and the baby's medicine too.
My BS meter tells me this <<unusual person>> gave her baby an intentional overdose and was attempting to save her own backside.
And again, they keep saying this baby was going to die. When most people with this syndrome live 18+ years. Requiring constant care and profoundly retarded, but most of people with this syndrome live for years. So why do they keep saying this child was going to die soon?
billisbobby
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2011
- Messages
- 127
- Reaction score
- 5
I would like to know the answer to that too jjenny. imoo
Soulmagent
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 9,193
- Reaction score
- 9,824
I am assuming they know more about this baby, and her condition than just the syndrome in general.
Is hospice released when there is nothing else they can do? Or for example when home health care is doing a certain amount of hours in the home? Maybe Home health care offered more services at home then hospice or more hours.
I am not sure about all that but I cannot see a baby who was to improve being on morphine in the home. My kid has only ever been sent home with Codine (cancer) Everything else was given at an office.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by "improve?" I don't see anyone saying that children with diagnosis are going to do well. They will require constant care and remain profoundly developmentally retarded. There is no cure for this condition.
LCoastMom
JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE MARIE - STILL WAITING
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 7,517
- Reaction score
- 40
A status upgrade possibly? Some articles said she was on hospice which means she was terminal, others said hospice had been involved and another said it was uncertain hospice care had ever been set up...
The article from Aug said Brandy suffered from severe congenital health problems and wasn't expected to live long after being released from the hospital to her mother's care in mid-February. The known fact that the baby was on morphine at home makes me believe she was indeed thought to be terminal, at least at some point.
Maybe Ardon snapped after the fight with her bf (who early reports said worked two jobs and wasn't around much) - IDK, but I cannot wrap my head around how anyone can pour gasoline on an infant (dead or alive) and light them on fire. No way, no how. This woman went to lengths to cover a crime, no one would need to do so much to cover an accident.
Soulmagent
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 9,193
- Reaction score
- 9,824
By saying improve in my post above, I only meant might that the childs health condition could have improved . That was stated by me in context of hospice being removed. I didnt say cured. It might not have the reason. Based on the articles I read I was guessing at why hospice was rmoved while speculating at possible others.
Hospice send the child home I presume to be cared for at home. This is a chromosomal condition but much more severe than Down syndrome. From reading about it, the best in term of development one can hope for is that the child with this condition might be able to say a few words. But that doesn't necessarily mean the child was going to die any time soon, provided the child was given constant medical care. Some of these children do die in the first two years of life, but the ones who don't can live for years, some into their thirties.
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 31,866
- Reaction score
- 7,458
Morphine is for pain management, correct? That can not be good. I only hope the child was mercifully euthanized and I'll take some measure of comfort thinking about how the child is no longer in pain or suffering from what sounds to be like a horrific diagnosis
According to some articles she was actually alive when burned. If you think that is merciful, well...I don't know what to tell ya.
Soulmagent
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 9,193
- Reaction score
- 9,824
Hospice does not send people home. The fact that hospice was ever working with this child is very telling about the babys health condition reguardless of what her chromosomal condition may or may not imply. Hospice is exclusively end of life care and mostly an in home service.
http://www.helpguide.org/elder/hospice_care.htm
passionflower
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,742
- Reaction score
- 11,317
OMG, I didn't read that til now.....................:furious:
How exactly does a hospice "not send people home" when we have articles saying this particular child was released from hospice to live with her mother?
Wanting2Help
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,635
- Reaction score
- 361
The hospital would send the child home, not hospice. Hospice would come into her home for care.