Christian parents who 'let their 10-month-old girl die of malnutrition and dehydration after refusing to get help for religious reasons' react in horror as the judge reads out their MURDER charge

The Christian parents of a 10-month-old girl who died of malnutrition and dehydration in western Michigan after they allegedly refused to get medical help for religious reasons face life in jail. Seth Welch and Tatiana Fusari, both 27, were charged with felony murder and first-degree child abuse on Monday over the death of their daughter, Mary, on Thursday.

In incredible footage filmed in a Kent County court, Welch stared at the judge with his mouth wide open as she read out the charges, while Fusari burst into tears. First responders found Mary with sunken eyes and cheeks after Welch called 911 to say he had found the child dead in her crib. An autopsy on Friday ruled her cause of death as malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect by adult caregivers.

Welch and Fusari, who also shares her husband's surname, were brought in for questioning where they admitted to noticing their daughter was skinny and underweight as early as a month before her death.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6037213/Parents-let-baby-die-malnutrition-refusing-help-religious-reasons.html

Jesus. Some people are just fucking crazy.

I'm not sure about the truth of this article... or that the autopsy is accurate in appointing blame on parents when there are a number of medical conditions that could cause the appearance of dehydration/malnutrition in the child, and these possible causes will likely be undiscovered by autopsy examination...

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not sure about the truth of this article... or that the autopsy is accurate in appointing blame on parents when there are a number of medical conditions that could cause the appearance of dehydration/malnutrition in the child, and these possible causes will likely be undiscovered by autopsy examination...

What are these medical conditions?

What evidence do you have for your claims?

How do you explain also though the parents acts or should I say lack of acts to have the child medically treated?

So even based on your flimsy claim, they still did not act on one of these other so called conditions, did they?

You are making some bold claims there, which you need to back up with evidence

There seems to be two issues here. Firstly, the issue of the child having malnutrition and dehydration, and secondly, the issue of the parents not getting medical help.

Raggamuffin wrote:There seems to be two issues here. Firstly, the issue of the child having malnutrition and dehydration, and secondly, the issue of the parents not getting medical help.

Indeed and the parents admit the child was for at least a month, skinny and underweight..

They did not seek medical help

The article, the coroner, and the prosecutor are making the 'bold claims' here...!


I am merely saying that there may well be other factors involved... and parents may well have been doing their best to look after child... with no intention of neglect/harm to child...


Without having full details, it's impossible to say for sure...


Which is partly the reason why I'm so skeptical of the OP and it's seemingly already conclusive opinion... when the majority of facts are unknown...!

If the malnutrition and dehydration was not deliberate, or even the result of neglect, that just leaves the issue of not getting medical help. That's not really the same as murder.

Tommy Monk wrote:The article, the coroner, and the prosecutor are making the 'bold claims' here...!


I am merely saying that there may well be other factors involved... and parents may well have been doing their best to look after child... with no intention of neglect/harm to child...


Without having full details, it's impossible to say for sure...


Which is partly the reason why I'm so skeptical of the OP and it's seemingly already conclusive opinion... when the majority of facts are unknown...!

Its not a bold claim on the cause of death

That is the cause of death

There could well have been an illness, which again they did not seek medical advice for at least a month. Both admitting she was skinny and underweight.

That is neglect

YOu have to wait for the trial to start, but I am sure the testimony of the coroner, is more solid than an opinion you may have. I am sure this will be looked at by the defence.

Raggamuffin wrote:If the malnutrition and dehydration was not deliberate, or even the result of neglect, that just leaves the issue of not getting medical help. That's not really the same as murder.

Exactly!


And a coroner may find dehydration/malnutrition as likely cause of death... but not their place to attribute blame on parents... when there are numerous other possible medical conditions that could be responsible, and which they never even looked for...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the malnutrition and dehydration was not deliberate, or even the result of neglect, that just leaves the issue of not getting medical help. That's not really the same as murder.

Exactly!


And a coroner may find dehydration/malnutrition as likely cause of death... but not their place to attribute blame on parents... when there are numerous other possible medical conditions that could be responsible, and which they never even looked for...!

Buuuuuuut, the cause of death was dehydration/malnutrition and its clear she was skinny and underweight for at least a month

They did not seek medical help

Anywa, still in shock Syl thinks the burka, is a nice garment and not an oppressive symbol of Wahhabism

You know the belief system that states to hang homosexuals, kill apostates, stone adulterers etc.



Night Tommy

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not sure about the truth of this article... or that the autopsy is accurate in appointing blame on parents when there are a number of medical conditions that could cause the appearance of dehydration/malnutrition in the child, and these possible causes will likely be undiscovered by autopsy examination...

Elaborate, please.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the malnutrition and dehydration was not deliberate, or even the result of neglect, that just leaves the issue of not getting medical help. That's not really the same as murder.

Exactly!


And a coroner may find dehydration/malnutrition as likely cause of death... but not their place to attribute blame on parents... when there are numerous other possible medical conditions that could be responsible, and which they never even looked for...!

Okay, the coroner knows that if he/she finds malnutrition and dehydration and no cause besides neglect, the parents are facing criminal charges.

So the coroner is going to rule out every other possible explanation before claiming neglect.

These people are an integral part of the legal system and don't just throw around accusations of child neglect willy-nilly.

Coroner may find cause of death... and may well find cause to be dehydration/malnutrition... but not necessarily find what was the cause of the dehydration/malnutrition...


Many possible medical conditions that could be responsible... and would not be diagnosed in an autopsy...


Thought I had been quite clear already...

Investigators say that Welch and Fusari knew about their daughter's failing health but did not seek medical help due to their religious beliefs and their mistrust in doctors.

It's got nothing to do with Coroners    
You're an Idiot Tommy 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-michigan-father-charges-20180808-story.html

Self declared "Christians"...

And, obviously, not a Christian bone in their deranged and demented bodies..

Every few months you hear about this brand of deliberate child neglect --  and not only in the USA, these days  --  with loopy parents falling back onto "religious beliefs" to excuse their craziness.

Compulsory sterilisation should be considered for any people joining any extremist fringe "religious" cult (whether Christian, Muslim, or even Rainbow/PETA/Venusian..) with a known history of this kind of child nelect --  stop those bastards from breeding in the first place..

Why didn't they seek help, go to doctors, hospital, anywhere. They can't think they never noticed the child's condition and be worried.

Complete negligence on their part.

What kind of diseases? Celiac, Cystic Fibrosis? Same effects but would a half decent pathologist miss that. Sounds more like what so many infants died of in Victorian times marasmus - failure to thrive which apperently was a severe lack of protein. While researching my family history I found a few instances of children - babies usually having this on their death certs. Mothers not having enough food and couldn't feed their baby properly or in two instances babies where the mother had died in child birth and the babies a month later of this cause, not much in the way of formula around then.

veya_victaous wrote:

Investigators say that Welch and Fusari knew about their daughter's failing health but did not seek medical help due to their religious beliefs and their mistrust in doctors.

It's got nothing to do with Coroners    
You're an Idiot Tommy 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-michigan-father-charges-20180808-story.html

From the OP...


"An autopsy on Friday ruled her cause of death as malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect by adult caregivers."

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

It's got nothing to do with Coroners    
You're an Idiot Tommy 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-michigan-father-charges-20180808-story.html

From the OP...


"An autopsy on Friday ruled her cause of death as malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect by adult caregivers."

The cause of death is still malnutrition and dehydration

Yes... I agree... but it is up to the court to decide what the cause of that was... after hearing all the possible evidence...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes... I agree... but it is up to the court to decide what the cause of that was... after hearing all the possible evidence...!

He still can issue and state as to why.

That then will be debated in court

No... an autopsy is to try to establish an expert opinion on the actual physical cause of death... and even to offer expert opinion on all the possible scenarios/medical conditions that could lead to such a death...


It is for the court to hear all the evidence... and for the court to decide...!


What strikes me from the OP... is that this couple are described as being absolutely stunned with shock & surprise at the criminal accusations...


I would expect a different response from a couple who were deliberately responsible for what they are accused of...


And there are other medical possibilities that could well be responsible...


I just get the feeling that there is much more going on here...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... an autopsy is to try to establish an expert opinion on the actual physical cause of death... and even to offer expert opinion on all the possible scenarios/medical conditions that could lead to such a death...


It is for the court to hear all the evidence... and for the court to decide...!


What strikes me from the OP... is that this couple are described as being absolutely stunned with shock & surprise at the criminal accusations...


I would expect a different response from a couple who were deliberately responsible for what they are accused of...


And there are other medical possibilities that could well be responsible...


I just get the feeling that there is much more going on here...

Are you sure, based on US law?

A coroner will make a rulling and why it has gone to court

Why would you expect a different repsonse from religious radicals?

I can give you examples where ISIS mothers have glorified their kids death by a missle strike, thinking its a great thing to happen

Does that seem like a normal response from a mother that has lost their child?

Hence you are not factoring in the radical religious views here, which are very much documented

If the child had developed a digestive problem, whereby the system was unable to properly absorb vital nutrients/vitamins/minerals etc... then this could quickly lead to the appearance of symptoms of dehydration/malnutrition and then rapidly result in the childs death...


Although... an autopsy will only confirm the dehydration /malnutrition part of that... and the extremely low levels of nutrients/vitamins/minerals etc... it will not diagnose a historical digestive disorder of inability to absorb these vital ingredients...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
If the child had developed a digestive problem, whereby the system was unable to properly absorb vital nutrients/vitamins/minerals etc... then this could quickly lead to the appearance of symptoms of dehydration/malnutrition and then rapidly result in the childs death...


Although... an autopsy will only confirm the dehydration /malnutrition part of that... and the extremely low levels of nutrients/vitamins/minerals etc... it will not diagnose a historical digestive disorder of inability to absorb these vital ingredients...!

Okay, can you back that up with an article or something? I've never heard of an undetectable disease ...

And if there is one that makes babies die of malnutrition and dehydration but leaves no trace in an autopsy, well, all the couple's lawyer has to do is claim that in court and no jury could convict them.

If a child died from malnutrition/dehydration... but the cause of this was 'malabsorption'...


How would an autopsy do anything other than find that the direct cause of death was the malnutrition/dehydration (symptoms)...???


Would an autopsy be able to determine that 'malabsorption' was the actual cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration and eventual death...???


Or would a diagnosis of this only be possible on a living patient, and after undergoing tests...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

If a child died from malnutrition/dehydration... but the cause of this was 'malabsorption'...


How would an autopsy do anything other than find that the direct cause of death was the malnutrition/dehydration (symptoms)...???


Would an autopsy be able to determine that 'malabsorption' was the actual cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration and eventual death...???


Or would a diagnosis of this only be possible on a living patient, and after undergoing tests...?

Sorry but I do not buy this would not be detectable for a minute by a coroner.

Being as there would be other ways to detect this.

One is abnormally high levels of fat within the stools

Other tests can pick this up in the blood, plus the evidence of the parents to what actual symptoms

You are making wildly and speculative claims, not backing any of this with any data

Even in the remotest chance you are right on the condition. They still refused medical treatement for the baby and knew clearly at least a month before the babies death, that she was unwell.

Tommy's full of shit...

'Undiagnosed' intellectual constipation ???

Tommy does have a point. It's interesting that the baby didn't die of starvation as such. I'd like to know what tests they carried out at the autopsy. Obviously, the parents should have sought medical help, but that's a different issue to murder. Is the suggestion that they deliberately starved the baby to death?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy's full of shit...

'Undiagnosed' intellectual constipation  ???

It might help if you read and at least attempted to understand what Tommy posted instead of resorting to your usual meaningless and gratuitous insults.

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy does have a point. It's interesting that the baby didn't die of starvation as such. I'd like to know what tests they carried out at the autopsy. Obviously, the parents should have sought medical help, but that's a different issue to murder. Is the suggestion that they deliberately starved the baby to death?

I understand where Tommy is coming from and its a view that there may have been a medical condition.

However, he is basically discounting the evidence of a coroner, who's main jobs is to find the cause of death and will exhaust many avenues to assertain this.

Hence Tommy is in fact being skeptical of the coroner, which is fine, but offers no valid reason as to why.

He has thrown in a condition and argued that this could have been missed, based on no real evidence to show why.

He needs to get very techinical and show it could have easily been missed

However again, the parents clearly knew something was wrong, at least a month before and did not seek medical help

Based off paranoid religious beliefs around the medical profession

It means they placed their beliefs over that of what is best for their own child

Neither are medically qualified to state what is best

To me that is neglect

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy's full of shit...

'Undiagnosed' intellectual constipation  ???

It might help if you read and at least attempted to understand what Tommy posted instead of resorting to your usual meaningless and gratuitous insults.

Because it’s his go-to language. Much like a grumpy, grunting ape.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy does have a point. It's interesting that the baby didn't die of starvation as such. I'd like to know what tests they carried out at the autopsy. Obviously, the parents should have sought medical help, but that's a different issue to murder. Is the suggestion that they deliberately starved the baby to death?

I understand where Tommy is coming from and its a view that there may have been a medical condition.

However, he is basically discounting the evidence of a coroner, who's main jobs is to find the cause of death and will exhaust many avenues to assertain this.

Hence Tommy is in fact being skeptical of the coroner, which is fine, but offers no valid reason as to why.

He has thrown in a condition and argued that this could have been missed, based on no real evidence to show why.

He needs to get very techinical and show it could have easily been missed

However again, the parents clearly knew something was wrong, at least a month before and did not seek medical help

Based off paranoid religious beliefs around the medical profession

It means they placed their beliefs over that of what is best for their own child

Neither are medically qualified to state what is best

To me that is neglect

It was at the autopsy that it was decided the child died of malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect. I'm not sure if that's the same as the coroner deciding that, and I'm not sure how they can tell that it was due to neglect. They can tell if there was malnutrition and dehydration, but isn't it usually up to others to find out how that came about?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I understand where Tommy is coming from and its a view that there may have been a medical condition.

However, he is basically discounting the evidence of a coroner, who's main jobs is to find the cause of death and will exhaust many avenues to assertain this.

Hence Tommy is in fact being skeptical of the coroner, which is fine, but offers no valid reason as to why.

He has thrown in a condition and argued that this could have been missed, based on no real evidence to show why.

He needs to get very techinical and show it could have easily been missed

However again, the parents clearly knew something was wrong, at least a month before and did not seek medical help

Based off paranoid religious beliefs around the medical profession

It means they placed their beliefs over that of what is best for their own child

Neither are medically qualified to state what is best

To me that is neglect

It was at the autopsy that it was decided the child died of malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect. I'm not sure if that's the same as the coroner deciding that, and I'm not sure how they can tell that it was due to neglect. They can tell if there was malnutrition and dehydration, but isn't it usually up to others to find out how that came about?

Its very much factual

Its evident the child died from malnutrition and dehydration.

The child, was even by admission by the parents, skinny and underweight at least a month previous. So they admit something was wrong. To argue they did not know it was malnutrition or dehydration, backs the view they should have sought medical advice.

Ignorance is not an excuse rags

They did not act to seek medical attention

That is neglect

Let me put it to you this way Rags

Are you telling me that if parents decide to lock up a child and serve them minimum food, not knowing what harm could happen, that they are then blameless? By claiming ignorance?

What is wirse here is the views and beliefs held by the couple on the medical proffession. Its these religious beliefs that played a major part in the parents not seeking medical help. In otherwords the parents are responsible for their neglect here. They took the misguided beliefs off others onmline and did nothing to protect their child.

Religious views or skeptism of the medical proffession is not an ecuse to then allow a child to die.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was at the autopsy that it was decided the child died of malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect. I'm not sure if that's the same as the coroner deciding that, and I'm not sure how they can tell that it was due to neglect. They can tell if there was malnutrition and dehydration, but isn't it usually up to others to find out how that came about?

Its very much factual

Its evident the child died from malnutrition and dehydration.

The child, was even by admission by the parents, skinny and underweight at least a month previous. So they admit something was wrong. To argue they did not know it was malnutrition or dehydration, backs the view they should have sought medical advice.

Ignorance is not an excuse rags

They did not act to seek medical attention

That is neglect

Let me put it to you this way Rags

Are you telling me that if parents decide to lock up a child and serve them minimum food, not knowing what harm could happen, that they are then blameless? By claiming ignorance?

The malnutrition and dehydration might not have been caused by neglect though.

There's no suggestion that these parents did that kind of thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its very much factual

Its evident the child died from malnutrition and dehydration.

The child, was even by admission by the parents, skinny and underweight at least a month previous. So they admit something was wrong. To argue they did not know it was malnutrition or dehydration, backs the view they should have sought medical advice.

Ignorance is not an excuse rags

They did not act to seek medical attention

That is neglect

Let me put it to you this way Rags

Are you telling me that if parents decide to lock up a child and serve them minimum food, not knowing what harm could happen, that they are then blameless? By claiming ignorance?

The malnutrition and dehydration might not have been caused by neglect though.

There's no suggestion that these parents did that kind of thing.

Of course it would.

They claimed and expressed many times against the medical proffession.

The dad even made views about natural selection, based off God deciding whether someone lives or dies

So there inaction will have greatly ensured the child did die from malnutrition and dehydration

They knew a month before something was wrong

They even stated this and said they would not go and seek medical advice

can you show this child would have died with medical help?

No you cannot

Like i say, ignorance is not an excuse and here it was more, they disliked the medical proffession to the point they denied their child the medical help that she needed

That is neglect

As I said, there are two separate issues here - the medical condition which led to death, and the neglect in not seeking help. The point is that the parents might not have caused the malnutrition or dehydration, and yet that's what been stated - prematurely IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:As I said, there are two separate issues here - the medical condition which led to death, and the neglect in not seeking help. The point is that the parents might not have caused the malnutrition or dehydration, and yet that's what been stated - prematurely IMO.

There is no seperate issue here

The child was ill

The parents admit this

They held a dislike and distain for doctors

Their beliefs religiously, ensured their child had no medical help

That is neglect

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:As I said, there are two separate issues here - the medical condition which led to death, and the neglect in not seeking help. The point is that the parents might not have caused the malnutrition or dehydration, and yet that's what been stated - prematurely IMO.

There is no seperate issue here

The child was ill

The parents admit this

They held a dislike and distain for doctors

Their beliefs religiously, ensured their child had no medical help

That is neglect

Of course there are separate issues. They've been charged with murder as well - presumably because the people who did the autopsy decided that the death was due to the parents not feeding the child or something. The neglect stems from them not seeking help when the child wasn't well.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


There is no seperate issue here

The child was ill

The parents admit this

They held a dislike and distain for doctors

Their beliefs religiously, ensured their child had no medical help

That is neglect

Of course there are separate issues. They've been charged with murder as well - presumably because the people who did the autopsy decided that the death was due to the parents not feeding the child or something. The neglect stems from them not seeking help when the child wasn't well.

It is murder

Its not down to the parents on feeding but neglect

They held beliefs not to seek profesional help.

They tought their religious beliefs would resolve this

They knew their daughter was unwell

They denied her the chance to life, theough medical intervention

That is child abuse and neglect

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course there are separate issues. They've been charged with murder as well - presumably because the people who did the autopsy decided that the death was due to the parents not feeding the child or something. The neglect stems from them not seeking help when the child wasn't well.

It is murder

Its not down to the parents on feeding but neglect

They held beliefs not to seek profesional help.

They tought their religious beliefs would resolve this

They knew their daughter was unwell

They denied her the chance to life, theough medical intervention

That is child abuse and neglect

Not getting help for a sick child isn't murder.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


It is murder

Its not down to the parents on feeding but neglect

They held beliefs not to seek profesional help.

They tought their religious beliefs would resolve this

They knew their daughter was unwell

They denied her the chance to life, theough medical intervention

That is child abuse and neglect

Not getting help for a sick child isn't murder.

Empahtically it is, when you know your child is ill

these parents knew their child was ill, at least a month before

They place their belief in faith, not reality

I hope they go down for life

They should not be allowed to raise children

Thanks to those with an open mind here... and who actually listened to what I said...!


An autopsy will try to determine the direct cause of death... and in this case it was found to most likely be malnutrition/dehydration as being the direct cause of death...


Now... unless the examiner has categoric empirical evidence on the direct cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration, and has categoric empirical evidence against any/every other possible cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration... then they have no business making such a definitive claim of blame, when it is really only speculative conjecture...!


It is for a court to hear all the relevant evidence, and a jury to consider and decide the verdict...!


That is all I am saying...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Thanks to those with an open mind here... and who actually listened to what I said...!


An autopsy will try to determine the direct cause of death... and in this case it was found to most likely be malnutrition/dehydration as being the direct cause of death...


Now... unless the examiner has categoric empirical evidence on the direct cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration, and has categoric empirical evidence against any/every other possible cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration... then they have no business making such a definitive claim of blame, when it is really only speculative conjecture...!


It is for a court to hear all the relevant evidence, and a jury to consider and decide the verdict...!


That is all I am saying...!

Exactly!

If it turns out that the child was malnourished and dehydrated for reasons other than neglect from the parents, I don't think they'll be convicted of murder. They might be convicted of child neglect for not seeking help though.

Tommy Monk wrote:Thanks to those with an open mind here... and who actually listened to what I said...!


An autopsy will try to determine the direct cause of death... and in this case it was found to most likely be malnutrition/dehydration as being the direct cause of death...


Now... unless the examiner has categoric empirical evidence on the direct cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration, and has categoric empirical evidence against any/every other possible cause of the symptoms of malnutrition/dehydration... then they have no business making such a definitive claim of blame, when it is really only speculative conjecture...!


It is for a court to hear all the relevant evidence, and a jury to consider and decide the verdict...!


That is all I am saying...!

Well I am still waiting that you have evidence that coroners will not exhuast such conditions?

Which is really a red herring by you Tommy

These are the facts

The child did die of malnutrition and dehydration

No matter the condition, the parents did nothing and did so based on a hostile belief of the medical proffession

They knew a month before that their own child was unwell

They sought a paranoia view not to seek medical advice

They are 100% responsible

Let me put it to you this way

If thier child struggled to breath.

They would never call 999

They place religious beliefs over that of the health of their own child

That is abuse and neglect

Raggamuffin wrote:If it turns out that the child was malnourished and dehydrated for reasons other than neglect from the parents, I don't think they'll be convicted of murder. They might be convicted of child neglect for not seeking help though.

You do realise the above contradicts?