- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,179
- Location
- New Orleans, Louisiana.
- Nation Banner

- Main Job

- Secondary Job

- Third Job

- Linkshell
- KP
- FFXI
- Zaltana
oops, i think you took what i said out of context. I don't think the charges are exactly fair. This tiptoes very very close to malicious prosecution i think. A murder charge, as i understand it, requires an "INTENT to kill". And the father, in a highly uncalled for manner, was just trying to get her to stop crying. But he went to far and injured her severely. Both he and his wife were charged for THAT crime and rightfully convicted. Now 19 years later she dies unexpectedly. From reading the article it sounds like she wasn't even expected to make it this far. but the girl JUST HAPPENED to die at 19. If anything that sounds like a manslaughter charge to me. If the girls injuries were known to be eventually fatal, why weren't the past charges more severe? Or did they not know her injuries would prove fatal then and they are just trying to badger a man that is obviously repentant and has made himself a better person? We really don't know, and probably never will.I agree with what Zaltana said to a certain extent but you can't charge someone with manslaughter or murder if the person didn't die...yet. Whether it be manslaughter or murder 19 years later, the daughter died as a direct result of the injuries she received at the hands of her father. I wish I could give you examples of other cases where a person was attacked and it took them years to die as a result of it and the person responsible was convicted of the crime decades later. I don't know if there is any statute of limitations on manslaughter but there sure as hell isn't any on murder.
Another point that pushes the envelope is that the same prosecutor snatched up this case right away, almost like he was waiting for it. Which i know cannot be proven unless he admits it. (don't hold your breath) Making this a murder case is a big stretch IMO.