posted on March 15, 2004 10:42:10 AM new
Never did I say that the lawyer's statements were "facts". Linda, I've stated three times here already that all the "facts" aren't in. What part of that don't you understand?
Why do you always have to spin things around so much in your head and make it something else entirely?
posted on March 15, 2004 10:51:00 AM new
You said "clue in that this woman wasn't mentally competent to make decisions".
You don't know that. You've admitted we don't have all the facts.
I presented another possibility, drug and alcohol use. IF that turns out to be the reason she did what she did, then she'll stand trial just like anyone else with a substance abuse problem would....say for killing someone with a car while intoxicated.
Your judgements of what I say in my posts don't concern me at all.
posted on March 15, 2004 04:26:20 PM new
Wonder what additional charge, if any, will be made against Rowland for offering to sell her twin? A CA women called police to report she offered to sell her child to her for bail money.
Rowland's denying it.
Not clear if this is the same family friend who it was reported intended to adopt this child or not.
posted on March 15, 2004 07:06:06 PM new
Kinda reminds me of the cases where Midwives have been choosen instead of established medical professionals or doctors for birthing. I've heard of them charging the midwives for some malpractice, but I dont recall them ever charging the mothers for choosing this alternative method of birth? Same with the case a few years back when it was all the rage to have babies born in water tanks. If I remember right, one or (maybe a few) died, but they didnt charge the mothers, only the facilities.
I wonder if she had had the C, and the baby died anyway......would she still be responsible? Would the doctors/hospital be?
I bet had *she* died during the C, they'd say it was some complication that couldnt be avoided.
