Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This guy didn't kill the 2 yr old. He was in jail at the time. Also, the rape victim was not the 2 yr. old.
I haven't read anything else about this case, but this particular article just says the girl was found unresponsive in his house. It's obvious he didn't murder the girl while he was being held. That said, there are not many other facts available in the article. So concluding that the subject had "nothing to do" with her death is premature. How do you know he didn't just leave her there to fend for herself? How do you know he wasn't involved in her demise in some other way? The fact that the girl was in his house is a clue. How often have you found a baby that you don't know in your house? I grant you that this individual may have had nothing to do with her death, but that isn't blatantly obvious just because he happened to be in jail when she took her last breath.
I haven't read anything else about this case, but this particular article just says the girl was found unresponsive in his house. It's obvious he didn't murder the girl while he was being held. That said, there are not many other facts available in the article. So concluding that the subject had "nothing to do" with her death is premature. How do you know he didn't just leave her there to fend for herself? How do you know he wasn't involved in her demise in some other way? The fact that the girl was in his house is a clue. How often have you found a baby that you don't know in your house? I grant you that this individual may have had nothing to do with her death, but that isn't blatantly obvious just because he happened to be in jail when she took her last breath.
What I said (and you quoted) was that he didn't kill the 2 yr. old. I didn't say "He had nothing to do with her death" although, I don't think he had anything to do with her death, except it happened in his house.
The police officer was a foster parent, and I'm jumping to a conclusion that he was married, and the wife was in the home.
What I said (and you quoted) was that he didn't kill the 2 yr. old. I didn't say "He had nothing to do with her death" although, I don't think he had anything to do with her death, except it happened in his house.
The police officer was a foster parent, and I'm jumping to a conclusion that he was married, and the wife was in the home.
The "nothing to do with her death" was the prevailing theme from commentators prior to you and seemed to be the foundation of your comment. I don't have any idea whether or not he had anything to do with her death. I like to work with known and established facts, so playing online crime dog isn't my hobby. My point here was that just because he's being held doesn't necessarily remove him from consideration as a potential suspect here.
I have to admit this story/headline was confusing. The guy was in jail for child rape...then an article comes out saying a 2 year old in the house of the child rapist is now dead.
Sounds like some very bad luck/circumstances in that house. The child who died had an illness. I too thought the article was implying the 2 yr old had been assaulted and later died due to those injuries but that isnt the case.
I think it was obvious (because WE read the article) that he didn't directly kill the 2 yr. old.
But I think some people did not read the article, or they confused things, and thought he raped the 2 yr old, and that maybe he was directly responsible for her death.
Now...the article DID say there was no sign of trauma or foul play in their initial investigation.
Long story short...I think some people had jumped to the conclusion that (A) this was the child who was raped, and (B) that he somehow killed her.
Not surprising given what passes for journalism in this country now. Which is one reason why I personally try to avoid drawing conclusions based solely on the information they do or do not provide, unless it cites facts from an investigation that was done by official agencies.
I have to admit this story/headline was confusing. The guy was in jail for child rape...then an article comes out saying a 2 year old in the house of the child rapist is now dead.
Sounds like some very bad luck/circumstances in that house. The child who died had an illness. I too thought the article was implying the 2 yr old had been assaulted and later died due to those injuries but that isnt the case.
I agree that the headline was confusing and misleading.
Do we know the child had an illness? Like another news story somewhere? I thought maybe it was a sad accident, like swallowing a Tide Pod, or choking on a chunk of hotdog or something. Just wondering.
Quite honestly I didn't want to read the article...but i did. Doesn't give any other info on what the illness is that I could find
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
