|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 27, 2021 2:19:12 GMT
Isn't this a bit of double jeopardy? ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
A Florida Babysitter Abused a Baby Boy in 1984. He Died at the Age of 35 in 2019 — and Now She’s Charged with Murder.
Colin Kalmbacher Jul 26th, 2021, 12:40 pm
A former babysitter is being charged with murder 37 years after she injured an infant’s brain and changed his life irreparably.
Terry McKirchy, 59, stands accused of murder in the first degree over the September 2019 death of 35-year-old Benjamin Dowling.
She was arrested in Texas in early July and is currently awaiting extradition back to Broward County, Fla., where the awful incident that left Dowling developmentally disabled occurred back in 1984.
According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, McKirchy babysat Dowling while watching her own two children and two others on the day in question. When Rae Dowling picked up her not even 6-month-old son, however, she could tell there was something very wrong.
Journalist Eileen Kelley’s original report notes:
She told police her son’s hands were clenched and he was turning blue. She said his breathing was shallow and his eyes were no longer expressive but instead stared at her blankly.
Rae Dowling said she rushed off with her son, stopping to find a phone and call the pediatrician. “Meet at Plantation General Hospital,” she was told. There, doctors determined Benjamin had Shaken Infant Syndrome, now commonly referred to as abusive head trauma.
Abusive head trauma in an infant usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes the infant in frustration or anger, often because the child won’t stop crying. The result is permanent brain damage or death.
Initially, McKirchy, who was 22 years old and pregnant at the time of the incident, told police the boy had fallen off her couch.
But police didn’t believe that story.
She was charged with attempted murder the first degree and aggravated battery on a child. By accepting a plea deal, a judge in Broward County extended an offer of leniency; McKirchy was ordered to show up to jail on weekends until her third child was born.
Eventually, McKirchy went on with her life and later made it to Texas, though authorities aren’t exactly sure how long she had been in the Lone Star State when she was found and arrested by U.S. Marshals deputies at the O’Reilly’s Auto Parts store where she worked.
The Dowling family had two more children after Benjamin and tried their best to move on–but life doesn’t really work that way. They told the Sun-Sentinel the McKirchy plea deal was painful for them. And then there were the lost hopes and dreams they had for their son.
“Benjamin never progressed in development beyond a 5½-month-old infant. Benjamin never crawled, fully rolled over, walked, never talked, never fed himself, he never enjoyed a hamburger or an ice cream cone,” the Dowling family told the outlet in a lengthy statement.
“Although he lived to be 35 years old, the life we would have lived as a family was forever altered. We cherish our time with and memories of Benjamin, and we continue to support him through our belief that there should be justice for Benjamin,” that statement went on.
After Benjamin Dowling died, the calculus changed completely.
The Manatee County Medical Examiner’s Office performed an autopsy and found that his death was directly attributable to the injuries he sustained in 1984. That office referred the matter to the Hollywood Police Department–the arresting agency several decades prior. Police, in turn, referred the case to the Florida State Attorney’s Office. A grand jury was empaneled. A murder indictment was returned.
“The passage of time between the injuries sustained and the death of the victim were considered by the forensic experts who conducted the autopsy and ruled the death was directly caused by the injuries from 1984,” prosecutors told the Sun-Sentinel in a statement. “The facts speak for themselves, and this case was presented to the Grand Jury, which determined that this was a homicide.”
McKirchy had only been charged with attempted murder the first time around. Constitutional double jeopardy protections do not apply.
Now, she faces the prospect of life in prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 27, 2021 5:16:02 GMT
You didn't read the article?
"McKirchy had only been charged with attempted murder the first time around. Constitutional double jeopardy protections do not apply."
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 27, 2021 5:23:14 GMT
You didn't read the article? "McKirchy had only been charged with attempted murder the first time around. Constitutional double jeopardy protections do not apply."
But that doesn't seem odd to you at all?
She was charged and punished for the event........now, decades later, she's being punished again.
I'm not suggesting she deserves defense here...... just wondering about how weird a thing cases like this are.
The same goes for when someone fails to complete a murder and gets off with lesser charges just because they suck at killing people while certainly having clear intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 27, 2021 5:50:34 GMT
You didn't read the article? "McKirchy had only been charged with attempted murder the first time around. Constitutional double jeopardy protections do not apply."
But that doesn't seem odd to you at all?
She was charged and punished for the event........now, decades later, she's being punished again.
I'm not suggesting she deserves defense here...... just wondering about how weird a thing cases like this are.
The same goes for when someone fails to complete a murder and gets off with lesser charges just because they suck at killing people while certainly having clear intent.
It's not odd to me at all. She was punished for the crime she was charged with and now she's being charged with a new crime. She's certainly not the first person to be charged with murder decades after the incident.
I suspect that some failed murderers get longer sentences based on how serious they were about it. Either way, I hope Ms. McKirchy spends the rest of her life in prison. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 27, 2021 5:57:42 GMT
It's not odd to me at all. She was punished for the crime she was charged with and now she's being charged with a new crime. She's certainly not the first person to be charged with murder decades after the incident.
I suspect that some failed murderers get longer sentences based on how serious they were about it. Either way, I hope Ms. McKirchy spends the rest of her life in prison.
of course it's not ......to you.
It's not a new crime though.........the actions she took then have not been changed or added to. Only the end result has been altered.
I'd rather she be executed, but that's a whole nother discussion. She stole that person's ENTIRE life, she should meet the same punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 27, 2021 6:20:21 GMT
It's not odd to me at all. She was punished for the crime she was charged with and now she's being charged with a new crime. She's certainly not the first person to be charged with murder decades after the incident.
I suspect that some failed murderers get longer sentences based on how serious they were about it. Either way, I hope Ms. McKirchy spends the rest of her life in prison.
of course it's not ......to you.
It's not a new crime though.........the actions she took then have not been changed or added to. Only the end result has been altered.
I'd rather she be executed, but that's a whole nother discussion. She stole that person's ENTIRE life, she should meet the same punishment.
1. True. I have the benefit of having studied the Constitution and basic concepts of law 2. It is a new crime though. "Murder" and "attempted murder" ARE different. The passage of time between the act and the result is immaterial. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 27, 2021 6:26:22 GMT
1. True. I have the benefit of having studied the Constitution and basic concepts of law 2. It is a new crime though. "Murder" and "attempted murder" ARE different. The passage of time between the act and the result is immaterial.
well, I still find it an odd bunch of dots to connect over the passage of decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 27, 2021 6:35:10 GMT
1. True. I have the benefit of having studied the Constitution and basic concepts of law 2. It is a new crime though. "Murder" and "attempted murder" ARE different. The passage of time between the act and the result is immaterial.
well, I still find it an odd bunch of dots to connect over the passage of decades.
Try this scenario:
During the course of a drive-by shooting a bystander is hit by a stray bullet and paralyzed from the neck down. That person spends the next several years à la Christopher Reeve and eventually succumbs to the medical problems brought on by the shooting.
Are the dots easier to connect now that it was a gangbanger causing the death?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 27, 2021 6:39:50 GMT
Try this scenario:
During the course of a drive-by shooting a bystander is hit by a stray bullet and paralyzed from the neck down. That person spends the next several years à la Christopher Reeve and eventually succumbs to the medical problems brought on by the shooting.
Are the dots easier to connect now that it was a gangbanger causing the death?
No, because the organizational connections of the shooter really don't matter to me here.
What I find odd is that a person shot at others intentionally.........but ONLY the death or survival plays an important part in their punishment?
I get it from the victim's stand point that they'd rather survive........but in my mind it in no way changes the intent of the person committing the criminal act. They just 'got lucky' they sucked at killing on that particular day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 27, 2021 16:17:53 GMT
Try this scenario:
During the course of a drive-by shooting a bystander is hit by a stray bullet and paralyzed from the neck down. That person spends the next several years à la Christopher Reeve and eventually succumbs to the medical problems brought on by the shooting.
Are the dots easier to connect now that it was a gangbanger causing the death?
No, because the organizational connections of the shooter really don't matter to me here.
What I find odd is that a person shot at others intentionally.........but ONLY the death or survival plays an important part in their punishment?
I get it from the victim's stand point that they'd rather survive........but in my mind it in no way changes the intent of the person committing the criminal act. They just 'got lucky' they sucked at killing on that particular day.
So all you care about is "intent"?
Now think about "hate crimes."
See?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 28, 2021 4:23:16 GMT
So all you care about is "intent"?
Now think about "hate crimes."
See?
When it comes to shaken baby crimes ......... I'm not sure we could ever say anyone actually intended to kill the babies. They just want them to shut up or behave. So it's more about what harm their actual actions have done.
Hate crimes are stupid to me ......... because all I'm concerning myself with is the actual harm they've done to someone else. Their motivation might explain WHY.........but who gives a shit if their excuses are pretty much retarded anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 28, 2021 11:08:47 GMT
So all you care about is "intent"?
Now think about "hate crimes."
See?
When it comes to shaken baby crimes ......... I'm not sure we could ever say anyone actually intended to kill the babies. They just want them to shut up or behave. So it's more about what harm their actual actions have done.
Hate crimes are stupid to me ......... because all I'm concerning myself with is the actual harm they've done to someone else. Their motivation might explain WHY.........but who gives a shit if their excuses are pretty much retarded anyway?
So if intent doesn't matter, then we have to redefine all of the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter.
It's really simple,Abs: Her actions led to the death of another human being and she's going to be tried for her crime. The amount of time that has passed between the two events is immaterial.
You slide through a stop sign and hit another car. The driver of the other car is a pregnant woman. She miscarries. You're on the hook for vehicular manslaughter. You had no intent to kill a baby but you did. Go to jail. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jul 28, 2021 13:18:19 GMT
So if intent doesn't matter, then we have to redefine all of the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter.
It's really simple,Abs: Her actions led to the death of another human being and she's going to be tried for her crime. The amount of time that has passed between the two events is immaterial.
You slide through a stop sign and hit another car. The driver of the other car is a pregnant woman. She miscarries. You're on the hook for vehicular manslaughter. You had no intent to kill a baby but you did. Go to jail.
Look at all the inconsistencies in your post for once.
That wasn't a baby, it was a fetus......just a clump of cells.
I had no intention of killing anyone, it was an accident....so even if there was a death, the punishment would likely be less than murder charges.
If I slid thru that sign at 75MPH over the posted speed limit, would that look worse for my case?
Hey, if I was high or drunk at the time, do you think that would make that accident any more inexcusable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jul 28, 2021 19:28:40 GMT
So if intent doesn't matter, then we have to redefine all of the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter.
It's really simple,Abs: Her actions led to the death of another human being and she's going to be tried for her crime. The amount of time that has passed between the two events is immaterial.
You slide through a stop sign and hit another car. The driver of the other car is a pregnant woman. She miscarries. You're on the hook for vehicular manslaughter. You had no intent to kill a baby but you did. Go to jail.
Look at all the inconsistencies in your post for once.
That wasn't a baby, it was a fetus......just a clump of cells.
I had no intention of killing anyone, it was an accident....so even if there was a death, the punishment would likely be less than murder charges.
If I slid thru that sign at 75MPH over the posted speed limit, would that look worse for my case?
Hey, if I was high or drunk at the time, do you think that would make that accident any more inexcusable?
Sorry. How about, "You illegally killed a human life."? Better?
Yes. The charges would be less than murder. It's not like you picked up a baby and shook it, knowing full-well what might happen.
Thank you.
/thread
|
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
