A woman who was in a vegetative state for years gave birth. Police want DNA from men who work at the facility

First topic message reminder :


Police investigators have begun to gather DNA from men who work at an Arizona care facility where a woman in a vegetative state gave birth last month.

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said Wednesday the woman and child, who was in medical distress after being delivered December 29, remain in the hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html


Some sick bastards about...

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:No emotions, you are simple talking a tripe and ignoring the facts

In fact, Victor is right on point.  I haven't been retained in this case, so I have no interest it it at all.  I'm just musing as to what defense might be raised.

And going back to using expert testimony to say she could never wake up, I can produce as many experts as anyone to say she could.  So the element of awake and aware consent is up for grabs.

And as Vic says, this all assumes they can identify the perp.

And all lawyers are skeptics...and hence, pessimists.  First year of law school you are taught to say, prove it!

He is talking as much gibberish on this as you frankly

He is ignorin gthe fact this woman was pregnant and the fact DNA can be used to match to a suspect

Can it not?

I mean they can even test for the fact whether she is a virgin on not

Being the fact she has been there since she was a child

The fact she has given birth to a child means one of two things

Eiether she was raped

Or some wacko doctor, took out some of her eggs, had them fertlized and then once taken placed them back into her

You prove rape by a rape kit, a sexual assault forensic exam, administered as soon as possible after the act. Obviously, that was not available in this case.

What needs to happen for conception, is for a sperm cell to join with an ovum. That's been known to happen with heavy petting.

Oh before some of you start thinking I have givben you a green light with IVF

You are going to fall down another rabbit hole of stupidity

AS they have more genertic differences than babies that have been conceived

Again Quill and Lord Foul you are ignoring the blatant fact how this woman in a vegetative state got pregnant. Being as she has been in this state since a child. Has and would have no concievable vioew of being as an adult and would also be brain damaged, due to her injury through near drowning.

How the pair of you can come out with the most dumbest arguments i have seen, is really beyond belief

It seems unlikely that she woke up, found a bloke there who wanted to have sex, and agreed to that. Would she even know what sex is?

Thor wrote:Oh before some of you start thinking I have givben you a green light with IVF

You are going to fall down another rabbit hole of stupidity

AS they have more genertic differences than babies that have been conceived

Again Quill and Lord Foul you are ignoring the blatant fact how this woman in a vegetative state got pregnant. Being as she has been in this state since a child. Has and would have no concievable vioew of being as an adult and would also be brain  damaged, due to her injury through near drowning.

How the pair of you can come out with the most dumbest arguments i have seen, is really beyond belief

With a breathing tube down her throat.  Do they think she pulled it out, yelled for a Male nurse to give her a quickie, with her 2 year old knowledge of such things, competed the task and reinserted the breathing tube down her throat?

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems unlikely that she woke up, found a bloke there who wanted to have sex, and agreed to that. Would she even know what sex is?

Nope.  But that doesn't matter.  The aliens could have taught her with their magic mind rays.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:Oh before some of you start thinking I have givben you a green light with IVF

You are going to fall down another rabbit hole of stupidity

AS they have more genertic differences than babies that have been conceived

Again Quill and Lord Foul you are ignoring the blatant fact how this woman in a vegetative state got pregnant. Being as she has been in this state since a child. Has and would have no concievable vioew of being as an adult and would also be brain  damaged, due to her injury through near drowning.

How the pair of you can come out with the most dumbest arguments i have seen, is really beyond belief

With a breathing tube down her throat.  Do they think she pulled it out, yelled for a Male nurse to give her a quickie, with her 2 year old knowledge of such things, competed the task and reinserted the breathing tube down her throat?

I know the mind boggles at what i am having to read through here mate

Neither are considering the condition of people in such vegetative states for long periods and even when they wake. How they are never then even fully concious. Let alone the fact she fell ill when as a child and is brain damaged

To be honest will leave you too it mate, its gone beyond ridiculous now

All the best

Night

Didge wrote:Again Quill and Lord Foul you are ignoring the blatant fact how this woman in a vegetative state got pregnant. Being as she has been in this state since a child. Has and would have no concievable vioew of being as an adult and would also be brain damaged, due to her injury through near drowning.

The defense will get his expert and the prosecution will get his or her expert. Both experts will testify and the jury will decide whether she was out like a light, or intermittently awake. It will be 50-50, depending on which expert is more persuasive.

Who knows...she might even be able to testify herself.

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:it does not however prove rape especially if rape is predicated on penetration......

why and how I'll leave to your immagination.....

So you are saying you need to medical prove penetration to make a conviction on rape, 9 months  after the act and after giving birth?

Are you saying that is the case for every rape trial, that you have to prove penetration?

Really?

Want to think about that?

Lets look at the facts again.

She gave birth to a child

How did she get pregnant?

I’m kinda failing to see how anyone isn’t getting this point yet.

She didn’t give consent so she was raped. Or are some missing the point?

Maddog wrote:With a breathing tube down her throat. Do they think she pulled it out, yelled for a Male nurse to give her a quickie, with her 2 year old knowledge of such things, competed the task and reinserted the breathing tube down her throat?

A respectful suitor would at least bring flowers.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Again Quill and Lord Foul you are ignoring the blatant fact how this woman in a vegetative state got pregnant. Being as she has been in this state since a child. Has and would have no concievable vioew of being as an adult and would also be brain damaged, due to her injury through near drowning.

The defense will get his expert and the prosecution will get his or her expert.  Both experts will testify and the jury will decide whether she was out like a light, or intermittently awake.  It will be 50-50, depending on which expert is more persuasive.

Who knows...she might even be able to testify herself.

What expert will claim a child brain damaged through near drowning and has been in this state since the accident. Could when woken have a mental capacity of an adult, never growing as an adult?

I think the Jury would decide anyone claiming she was able to consent was not fit to pratice in the medical profession. As they would be lying

Now i am done with yours and Lords fouls stupidity on this

Night

eds wrote:She didn’t give consent so she was raped. Or are some missing the point?

Or she gave consent, and it isn't rape.

eddie wrote:

Thor wrote:

So you are saying you need to medical prove penetration to make a conviction on rape, 9 months  after the act and after giving birth?

Are you saying that is the case for every rape trial, that you have to prove penetration?

Really?

Want to think about that?

Lets look at the facts again.

She gave birth to a child

How did she get pregnant?

I’m kinda failing to see how anyone isn’t getting this point yet.

She didn’t give consent so she was raped.  Or are some missing the point?

I know Eddie

Its absurd what some are claiming

Have a good evening, have to go

Night

eddie wrote:

Thor wrote:

So you are saying you need to medical prove penetration to make a conviction on rape, 9 months  after the act and after giving birth?

Are you saying that is the case for every rape trial, that you have to prove penetration?

Really?

Want to think about that?

Lets look at the facts again.

She gave birth to a child

How did she get pregnant?

I’m kinda failing to see how anyone isn’t getting this point yet.

She didn’t give consent so she was raped.  Or are some missing the point?

She isn't legally capable of giving consent (nor is she physically capable).  

Therefore, any sex with her would be a sexual assault or rape.  

But there are always a couple that think they are some sort of legal experts.  

Didge wrote:What expert will claim a child brain damaged through near drowning and has been in this state since the accident. Could when woken have a mental capacity of an adult, never growing as an adult?

I'll check in my medical digest of expert witnesses for lawyers (providing you send me a retainer).

Maddog wrote:She isn't legally capable of giving consent (nor is she physically capable).

That's a question best left up to the experts.

Is this an appropriate thread to be trolling, because it really looks like Quill is trolling his head off in this thread.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:She isn't legally capable of giving consent (nor is she physically capable).

That's a question best left up to the experts.

Yeah. If she was black you would say she was raped by a white man.

Quill's being a contrarian to say the least

However, and not to be the dullard arbiter of fairness here, I don't think Quill (and certainly not LF) is actually saying there hasn't been a rape here. Because evidently there has.

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that.

His point seems to be that, due to the nonsense bullshit that is legal speak and the lawyer designed hoops that lawyers use to make shit tonnes of money, the perp might never be convicted or proven guilty.

Which is fucking disgusting but not unheard. If you can pay you get away with literaly anything

Eilzel wrote:Quill's being a contrarian to say the least

However, and not to be the dullard arbiter of fairness here, I don't think Quill (and certainly not LF) is actually saying there hasn't been a rape here. Because evidently there has.

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that.

His point seems to be that, due to the nonsense bullshit that is legal speak and the lawyer designed hoops that lawyers use to make shit tonnes of money, the perp might never be convicted or proven guilty.

Which is fucking disgusting but not unheard. If you can pay you get away with literaly anything

They need a parade of doctors to testify she was in a coma and a parade of scientists to prove that the DNA belonged to the suspect. Then there will be a conviction.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Quill's being a contrarian to say the least

However, and not to be the dullard arbiter of fairness here, I don't think Quill (and certainly not LF) is actually saying there hasn't been a rape here. Because evidently there has.

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that.

His point seems to be that, due to the nonsense bullshit that is legal speak and the lawyer designed hoops that lawyers use to make shit tonnes of money, the perp might never be convicted or proven guilty.

Which is fucking disgusting but not unheard. If you can pay you get away with literaly anything

They need a parade of doctors to testify she was in a coma(Vegetative state) and a parade of scientists to prove that the DNA belonged to the suspect. Then there will be a conviction.

Made a slight correction  to the above post, as there is a difference between the two

All they will need is DNA test results, that really does not requie a parade of scientists to prove the paternity of the father. 

There will also be records and medical history of her time at the facility and condition and no doubt some doctors and nurses could testify to this

As to Quills claim, we again already know there has been convictions for this before.

I mean if the suspect is the father, they would need to explain this, being the fact she has been in this vegetative state for years, since a child, where she suffered sever brain damage.

There will already be plenty of medical evidence to prove her condition... and only one DNA match from child to the sicko scum bag rapist is needed to prove who is responsible...

Eilzel wrote:Quill's being a contrarian to say the least

However, and not to be the dullard arbiter of fairness here, I don't think Quill (and certainly not LF) is actually saying there hasn't been a rape here. Because evidently there has.

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that.

His point seems to be that, due to the nonsense bullshit that is legal speak and the lawyer designed hoops that lawyers use to make shit tonnes of money, the perp might never be convicted or proven guilty.

Which is fucking disgusting but not unheard. If you can pay you get away with literaly anything

Oh. Yes Les. You can. I have been saying this for a very long time. Hey ho. We can pick and choose though. I suppose.
Apply that to everything and then, you may have an open mind about everything.
I suppose.
Everything.

And I need to disappear for a while...cos, you know..my post applies to some things but not everything.

I suppose?

I hope to come see you in April. X

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Quill's being a contrarian to say the least

However, and not to be the dullard arbiter of fairness here, I don't think Quill (and certainly not LF) is actually saying there hasn't been a rape here. Because evidently there has.

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that.

His point seems to be that, due to the nonsense bullshit that is legal speak and the lawyer designed hoops that lawyers use to make shit tonnes of money, the perp might never be convicted or proven guilty.

Which is fucking disgusting but not unheard. If you can pay you get away with literaly anything

Oh. Yes Les. You can. I have been saying this for a very long time. Hey ho. We can pick and choose though. I suppose.
Apply that to everything and then, you may have an open mind about everything.  
I suppose.
Everything.  

And I need to disappear for a while...cos, you know..my post applies to some things but not everything.

I suppose?

I hope to come see you in April. X

I do have an open mind about everything

I think people have known a long time people with enough cash can get away with actual murder, thanks to money. Hell, with enough money and audacity apparently you can do and say awful things and still reach the highest office!

^^I hope so too! Let me know when you do

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's a question best left up to the experts.

Yeah. If she was black you would say she was raped by a white man.

What on earth does it matter what I say?  I'm just cluing you in on what will transpire.

Oh yes, and I agree: law is only for the rich. On the other hand, would you rather have socialized law, where your lawyer's superior is a government official...and here you are, opposing the government?

But that's a totally separate matter from legal theory and what is possible.

Syl wrote:Is this an appropriate thread to be trolling, because it really looks like Quill is trolling his head off in this thread.

Um...I'm the one lawyer in the crowd, speaking out about the law...and I'm a troll because I am pointing out an unorthodox reality about law??

Imagine if I were your physician, telling you you've just had a heart attack. No doubt you'd have me arrested for trolling!!

I'm just the bearer of bad news.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Is this an appropriate thread to be trolling, because it really looks like Quill is trolling his head off in this thread.

Um...I'm the one lawyer in the crowd, speaking out about the law...and I'm a troll because I am pointing out an unorthodox reality about law??

Imagine if I were your physician, telling you you've just had a heart attack.  No doubt you'd have me arrested for trolling!!  

I'm just the bearer of bad news.

If you ar a lawyer, may I suggest you get up to date on simple medical terminology?

As how can a person many years in a Vegetative state give consent, when they were brain damaged as a child?

that is for some smart assed lawyer to bamboozle a judge/jury with .........

and they will try

as quill would no doubt agree ...the law (or at least its servants) is/are an ass

Lord Foul wrote:that is for some smart assed lawyer to bamboozle a judge/jury with .........

How?

That they hope they believe in the virgin mary?

Again how else would she have gotten pregnant?

Lord Foul wrote:and they will try

as quill would no doubt agree ...the law (or at least its servants) is/are an ass

I am sure they would try, but how could they prove their case?

We have a case that proves the suspect was the father

It was an open and shut case

This lady is in a vegetative state, thus unable to give consent

So how could she become pregnant and the suspect matched with paternal DNA explain how she got pregnant?

Eilzel wrote:Quill's being a contrarian to say the least

Of course I am.  This thread would be a lot less interesting if we all simply said...tsk, tsk, isn't that horrible!!

Les wrote:However, and not to be the dullard arbiter of fairness here, I don't think Quill (and certainly not LF) is actually saying there hasn't been a rape here. Because evidently there has.

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that.

It's called a defense case, the right to which exists because this is a free country.  You might prefer Russia or Saudi Arabia for their simplicity and efficiency, but not if you were the accused.

Les wrote:His point seems to be that, due to the nonsense bullshit that is legal speak and the lawyer designed hoops that lawyers use to make shit tonnes of money, the perp might never be convicted or proven guilty.

The "nonsense bullshit" is all about putting reality into words, and determining evidentiary standards by which to judge.  If you don't like that, try stoning.  I hear that goes over well in Arab countries.

Les wrote:Which is fucking disgusting but not unheard. If you can pay you get away with literaly anything

Absolutely!  Only insurance companies can afford attorneys.

On the other hand, how would you like having to make application to a government agency to obtain an attorney?

REASON FOR APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY:  "I'm innocent."

remember they (the defence) don't have to "prove" their case...the prosecution do....

If they can insert any doubt whatsoever, with the right (read stupid) jury they could possibly get away with it......and dont forget jury selection in the USA is a far more comical farce than we have over here.....
The odds are slim....BUT.......................................

Lord Foul wrote:remember they (the defence) don't have to "prove" their case...the prosecution do....

If they can insert any doubt whatsoever, with the right (read stupid) jury they could possibly get away with it......and dont forget jury selection in the USA is a far more comical farce than we have over here.....
The odds are slim....BUT.......................................

Well sorry mate that is easy to do

She is incapacitated and if the suspect is found to be the father through a DNA test. They have to then prove how clearly they never made her pregnant through sex, corrrect?

What you are failing to do is offer doubt mate

She is in a Vegetative state, through near drowning. Thus unable to provide consent. Even more so this happened when she was a child

So enlighten me how this could be possible to get someone off in this situation ?

I mean how could you sway a jury on this, if they are the paternal father pregnating a girl in a vegetative state

Didge wrote:She is incapacitated and if the suspect is found to be the father through a DNA test. They have to then prove how clearly they never made her pregnant through sex, corrrect?

Or that the sex was consentual.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:She is incapacitated and if the suspect is found to be the father through a DNA test. They have to then prove how clearly they never made her pregnant through sex, corrrect?

Or that the sex was consentual.

How?

How can someone brain damaged, through near drowning, as a child. Never knowing what ever its like to be an adult provide consent?

Let alone the extreme claim you are making

That they gained full consciousness and then relasped into this state of unconsciousness. How many people in a vegetative state does this occur?

Hence we are back to medical experts

Or a few staff climbed aboard her and took advantage. There might only be 1 successful inseminator, but theoritically, there could have been more than 1 potential father working there,
Put coarsly, and I hate to say it, they could have used here as a sex doll.

Andy wrote:Or a few staff climbed aboard her and took advantage. There might only be 1 successful inseminator, but theoritically,  there could have been more than 1 potential father working there,
Put coarsly, and I hate to say it, they could have used here as a sex doll.

Which would mean mutiple rapists surely Andy?

Absolultely, Thor, but as Quill said, it would be tough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that more than the proven father raped her, unless there was compelling witness evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Is this an appropriate thread to be trolling, because it really looks like Quill is trolling his head off in this thread.

Um...I'm the one lawyer in the crowd, speaking out about the law...and I'm a troll because I am pointing out an unorthodox reality about law??

Imagine if I were your physician, telling you you've just had a heart attack.  No doubt you'd have me arrested for trolling!!  

I'm just the bearer of bad news.

I know you say you are a lawyer Quill, we can all say what the heck we want on the internet.
I could be a truck driver from Moss side if I want to be.

The law must be very different in the USA to what it is here if it's true that this is not a straight forward case of rape.

The woman has been in a vegatetive state since she was three years old, she has never regained consciousness, and even if some miracle happened and she did wake up, her mental age would be in the state she was when she was last conscious....which was when she was three.
A three year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse so neither could this poor woman.
And then there is her physical state.

."The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.
She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show."


How could anyone argue with the facts of her medical state?
A smart arsed immoral defence lawyer, no matter how clever he thinks he is has to rely on medical evidence and expert opinion in a case like this. Here it seems no one but you is doubting that the woman has been illegally  impregnated by some low life scum of the earth who so far (because of some obvious cover up) has so far gone undetected.

Andy wrote:Absolultely, Thor, but as Quill said, it would be tough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that more than the proven father raped her, unless there was compelling witness evidence.

It would be easy to prove who the father was and at least one of the rapists would be convicted Andy

Andy wrote:Or a few staff climbed aboard her and took advantage. There might only be 1 successful inseminator, but theoritically,  there could have been more than 1 potential father working there,
Put coarsly, and I hate to say it, they could have used here as a sex doll.

One woman who's vulnerable daughter stays in this facility is refusing to leave her and is staying with her 24/7, and I dont blame her.
Who knows if other patients have been used for sex and unable to tell anyone?

Thor wrote:

Andy wrote:Absolultely, Thor, but as Quill said, it would be tough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that more than the proven father raped her, unless there was compelling witness evidence.

It would be easy to prove who the father was and at least one of the rapists would be convicted Andy

The difficulty would be convicting more than the father if she was "used" by a few others.

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Or that the sex was consentual.

How?

How can someone  brain damaged, through near drowning, as a child. Never knowing what ever its like to be an adult provide consent?

She woke up and consented.

Didge wrote:Let alone the extreme claim you are making

That they gained full consciousness and then relasped into this state of unconsciousness. How many people in a vegetative state does this occur?

Hence we are back to medical experts

How does that make a defendant guilty? As far as he knew she was perfectly lucid.

It's a tragic mistake, but we don't convict people of mistakes in criminal justice.

Syl wrote:

Andy wrote:Or a few staff climbed aboard her and took advantage. There might only be 1 successful inseminator, but theoritically,  there could have been more than 1 potential father working there,
Put coarsly, and I hate to say it, they could have used here as a sex doll.

One woman who's vulnerable daughter stays in this facility is refusing to leave her and is staying with her 24/7, and I dont blame her.
Who knows if other patients have been used for sex and unable to tell anyone?

Thousands. Millions. We'll never know.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

How?

How can someone  brain damaged, through near drowning, as a child. Never knowing what ever its like to be an adult provide consent?

She woke up and consented.

She is already awake but unconcious when in a vegetative state. As she is brain damaged, showing your complete ignorance here

This means she can openm her eyes, but is not concious of her surroundings

You do realise this?

So how could she give consent?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
One woman who's vulnerable daughter stays in this facility is refusing to leave her and is staying with her 24/7, and I dont blame her.
Who knows if other patients have been used for sex and unable to tell anyone?

Thousands.  Millions.  We'll never know.

In this facility I doubt millions, world wide possibly.

We had our own perverted rapist who had permission to come and go in hospitals, care facilities and morgues, having his way with numerous men women and children who were too scared or too ill (or dead) to complain.

Interesting question

consent

now for sex is that merely "consent" or informed consent ????

Lord Foul wrote:Interesting question

consent

now for sex is that merely "consent" or informed consent ????

How is that informed consent?

With permission to enter a premises?

Seriously mate?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Um...I'm the one lawyer in the crowd, speaking out about the law...and I'm a troll because I am pointing out an unorthodox reality about law??

Imagine if I were your physician, telling you you've just had a heart attack.  No doubt you'd have me arrested for trolling!!  

I'm just the bearer of bad news.

I know you say you are a lawyer Quill, we can all say what the heck we want on the internet.
I could be a truck driver from Moss side if I want to be.

It isn't about you or me, except in some insecure minds.

Syl wrote:The law must be very different in the USA to what it is here if it's true that this is not a straight forward case of rape.

As Victor said, the state has to prove its case.  Otherwise, one is innocent until proven guilty.  There is no "straight forward case" anywhere in jurisprudence.

Syl wrote:The woman has been in a vegatetive state since she was three years old, she has never regained consciousness, and even if some miracle happened and she did wake up, her mental age would be in the state she was when she was last conscious....which was when she was three.
A three year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse so neither could this poor woman.
And then there is her physical state.

All that has to be proven.  There are no foregone conclusions, or "straight forward cases."  

Syl wrote:How could anyone argue with the facts of her medical state?

Very easily.  You go through the records, line-by-line, and question everything.  You bring experts to the stand to say how poor the record-keeping is at this clinic.  You bring experts to the stand to say how the patient was misdiagnosed.  You bring experts to the stand to say how she is quite capable of awakening, and being quite lucid.  You question everything.

A smart arsed immoral prosecutor, no matter how clever he thinks he is, must rebut all those experts because he has the burden of proof.

Syl wrote:Here it seems no one but you is doubting that the woman has been illegally  impregnated by some low life scum of the earth who so far (because of some obvious cover up) has so far gone undetected.

Are they experts?  I'm sure the defense attorney will be glad to cross-examine them.