Imagine losing your newborn, then being sent to prison for it's murder.

A Georgia mom and dad convicted of murdering their days' old baby daughter have had all charges dismissed—after they each spent almost 13 years in prison.

The district attorney apologized that they never received a fair trial.

The case began in May 2008. Just a day after Ashley and Albert Debelbot brought their seemingly healthy baby girl, McKenzy, home, a bump was discovered on her forehead. The Debelbots brought her to Martin Army Hospital in Fort Benning, where she died a day later. The couple was accused of crushing her skull.

At their joint trial, their defense attorneys failed to present alternative explanations for the baby's death, including the fact that the baby may have been born with serious birth defects, exacerbated by a difficult delivery.

The defense attorneys also failed to object when, in closing arguments, Assistant District Attorney Sadhana Dailey told the jury that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard "does not mean beyond all doubt." She added: "It does not mean to a mathematical certainty. Which means we don't have to prove that 90 percent. You don't have to be 90 percent sure. You don't have to be 80 percent sure. You don't have to be 51 percent sure."


The parents were sentenced to life in prison.

Over the years, with the help of the Georgia Innocence Project, Wisconsin Innocence Project, and Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit's public defenders office, the couple sought a new trial. While Muscogee Superior Court Judge Arthur Smith refused to grant one, the Supreme Court of Georgia eventually heard the case last year. This time, the defense presented medical evidence that the baby did indeed have a serious brain defect, and added that the DA's office had illegally suppressed brain scans that would have helped the defense make its case. The court unanimously overturned the Debelbots' convictions, saying they had been denied their Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.

Initially, the government planned to retry the Debelbots. But just a few weeks ago, District Attorney Mark Jones, who inherited the case, decided not to do that. He told the Supreme Court that there was "mounting medical evidence that says the child was born this way"—that is, with a fatal brain defect. Then he went a step further and apologized to the Debelbots, on behalf of his office, for "not getting a fair trial."

https://reason.com/2021/05/06/debelbots-child-murder-shaken-baby-syndrome-free/


There needs to be more accountability from prosecutors that knowingly railroad citizens just to get the "win".

I hope they get some massive compensation

Heartbreaking, no amount of money can ever make up for that sort of injustice.

There was a similar case here years ago. A mother was accused of killing her two babies, she was found guilty and imprisoned. Her husband was convinced the babies died naturally and fought for her release, eventually she was released, I can't remember whether she was exonerated or not....anyway, she ended up prematurely dead, whether suicide was intended was not made clear.

Some things just break a person.

What a terrible miscarriage of justice!

That’s disgusting! Thirteen years imprisoned for nothing, and worse, people thinking they killed their daughter.

Heartbreaking.

Sounds like the sort of thing that happens when the couple was already unpopular in their community for some reason; I wonder if that played into the railroading of the case.

Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like the sort of thing that happens when the couple was already unpopular in their community for some reason; I wonder if that played into the railroading of the case.

Yeah. They could have been stereotyped.

But I really think the need for conviction drives too many of these things.

Prosecutors love to tout their conviction records.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like the sort of thing that happens when the couple was already unpopular in their community for some reason; I wonder if that played into the railroading of the case.

Yeah. They could have been stereotyped.  

But I really think the need for conviction drives too many of these things.  

Prosecutors love to tout their conviction records.  

I'm sure that is a major factor as well, I've often thought that two sides trying to defeat one another can't be the best way to arrive at the truth of what happened.

She is black, he is Asian of some sort it appears. They were both soldiers at the time. Could be possible cover-up at the military hospital too.

Being soldiers, I wonder what sort of defense they could afford or were they provided one by the army?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like the sort of thing that happens when the couple was already unpopular in their community for some reason; I wonder if that played into the railroading of the case.

Yeah. They could have been stereotyped.  

But I really think the need for conviction drives too many of these things.  

Prosecutors love to tout their conviction records.  

I'm sure that is a major factor as well, I've often thought that two sides trying to defeat one another can't be the best way to arrive at the truth of what happened.

Most lawyers aren’t about the truth, they’re about the money.

It is Georgia, after all.  Southern states do not declare persons of color innocent.  Typical thinking on blacks in Georgia, if they didn't do it this time, they probably did it the last time!

Nor will they get much compensation.  A Georgian jury will figger, it's just more welfare.

Not to be overly political about this thread, but it does seem to be an example of why I think "local control" isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Local sentiment can often create unfair situations.

I'm sure I heard about a teenager in the Bible Belt who was suspected of worshipping the Devil because he was a goth, who ended up being wrongly convicted of murder.

Human rights and justice don't do well with the mob mentality.

They served in the military, right? Wouldn’t they have been respected within their neighbourhood rather than anything else?
We may be jumping the gun slightly here. It wasn’t their local community that convicted them.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I'm sure they weren't well liked -- just saying that seems to happen quite a bit in wrongful conviction stories I've heard.

eddie wrote:They served in the military, right? Wouldn’t they have been respected within their neighbourhood rather than anything else?
We may be jumping the gun slightly here. It wasn’t their local community that convicted them.

What does the military have to do with it?

They were tried and convicted by a Georgian jury.  The military just determined where they worked.  In fact, it happened right on the Alabama line, in the deep, deep south.    This is in the vicinity where Treyvon Martin was murdered, and where Ahmaud Arbery was murdered…right in the middle of the Floribama/Georgia deep south.

Because the actual jurors are made up of members within the local community? Military people are usually respected.

For some prejudiced people, the fact that people from the groups they don't like can and do become respected members of the military is just too much for their brains to process.

Ben Reilly wrote:For some prejudiced people, the fact that people from the groups they don't like can and do become respected members of the military is just too much for their brains to process.

Okay I guess then we are assuming it’s their race.

How I wish this couple had been white.

eddie wrote:They served in the military, right? Wouldn’t they have been respected within their neighbourhood rather than anything else?
We may be jumping the gun slightly here. It wasn’t their local community that convicted them.

The problem isn't really the community. It was the prosecution, the defense and the system really.

Usually folks that serve are well respected.

The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:They served in the military, right? Wouldn’t they have been respected within their neighbourhood rather than anything else?
We may be jumping the gun slightly here. It wasn’t their local community that convicted them.

The problem isn't really the community. It was the prosecution, the defense and the system really.

Usually folks that serve are well respected.

The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.

I think it was the community and the prosecution. Southern cops, and southern prosecutors, and indeed, southern juries, come from the surrounding community. This is the Jim Crow south. Racism is their perspective and motive, whether it is cops shooting blacks, or prosecutors withholding evidence.

It's a classic case of what happens every day in the Jim Crow south, when it comes to race.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:They served in the military, right? Wouldn’t they have been respected within their neighbourhood rather than anything else?
We may be jumping the gun slightly here. It wasn’t their local community that convicted them.

The problem isn't really the community. It was the prosecution, the defense and the system really.

Usually folks that serve are well respected.

The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.

“The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.”

That’s the fair and unbiased post I wanted to see.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The problem isn't really the community. It was the prosecution, the defense and the system really.

Usually folks that serve are well respected.

The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.

“The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.”

That’s the fair and unbiased post I wanted to see.

Well, unbiased posters are more likely to post unbiased posts.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The problem isn't really the community. It was the prosecution, the defense and the system really.

Usually folks that serve are well respected.

The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.

“The jurors are limited by what they see presented. The prosecution withheld information. That should be some sort of crime.”

That’s the fair and unbiased post I wanted to see.

Well, unbiased posters are more likely to post unbiased posts.

I consider myself unbiased on the whole. There really shouldn’t be any other way.

eddie wrote:I consider myself unbiased on the whole. There really shouldn’t be any other way.

Now you see why I get so pissed. This goes on every day in the south. If you're white, law goes by one set of books. If you're black, there's a whole other set of law books for you.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I consider myself unbiased on the whole. There really shouldn’t be any other way.

Now you see why I get so pissed.  This goes on every day in the south.  If you're white, law goes by one set of books.  If you're black, there's a whole other set of law books for you.

This post is comical in light of the discussion moving towards bias.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Now you see why I get so pissed.  This goes on every day in the south.  If you're white, law goes by one set of books.  If you're black, there's a whole other set of law books for you.

This post is comical in light of the discussion moving towards bias.

Nonsense.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

This post is comical in light of the discussion moving towards bias.

Nonsense.

That's what biased people say when their biases are brought to light.

Yours are legendary around here.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I consider myself unbiased on the whole. There really shouldn’t be any other way.

Now you see why I get so pissed.  This goes on every day in the south.  If you're white, law goes by one set of books.  If you're black, there's a whole other set of law books for you.

This post is comical in light of the discussion moving towards bias.

You know, people with a biased mind will only ever see themselves as.....

Let the dots do the talking.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.

That's what biased people say when their biases are brought to light.

Yours are legendary around here.

Ya gettin' tired, Red? All that calculatin' all in such a short 'mount-o-time. Might could plum tucker a guy out, say what?

Try living up north. We do it all the time.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.

That's what biased people say when their biases are brought to light.

Yours are legendary around here.

Ya gettin' tired, Red?  All that calculatin' all in such a short 'mount-o-time.  Might could plum tucker a guy out, say what?

Try living up north.  We do it all the time.

You sound ridiculous sometimes. All this “we and us against you and your type”.

What happened to make you so short-sighted and intolerant? As soon as someone puts up an opposite view, you start becoming a gang member. Can’t you listen to another view without pointing a finger?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ya gettin' tired, Red?  All that calculatin' all in such a short 'mount-o-time.  Might could plum tucker a guy out, say what?

Try living up north.  We do it all the time.

You sound ridiculous sometimes. All this “we and us against you and your type”.

What happened to make you so short-sighted and intolerant? As soon as someone puts up an opposite view, you start becoming a gang member. Can’t you listen to another view without pointing a finger?

He is the most biased poster on here, and yet can't see it.