Another local child abuse situation

this little baby died -- They better get it right either way.

Very well stated. If a scapegoat is the focus of an investigation which never really got off the ground before charges, then the most horrific injustice may happen where an innocent person is accused and a potentially guilty person skates.

that's what scares me if they don't have it right someone is still out there say the time frame is off or anything or another doc says something else . If that were the case and they don't have everything down to the tee, It could have been the mother or father , I don't know

Maybe they just couldn't take the risk since it was a daycare . I have no idea . It seams though they just wouldn't arrest her right then if she didn't do it . But it has happened , goodness I don't know

2seaoat wrote:Mrs. Lowery said the 4 year old brother threw a block and hit the little one in he head.....hell maybe she was making an excuse for what she did. The severity of the injuries indicate it happened immediately.

You and Peter Pan make a great fantasy.   First, she stated an observation.  This was done probably when the police asked her if she was aware of any trauma to the child.   Was she supposed to not talk about the block and pretend it did not happen.  Where in your fantasy do you get that she is saying this is what caused the injury.  You are out of your fricking mind, and please explain what is immediate.  Is it a week, a day, eight hours, four hours, two hours, an hour, within 15 minutes.   You do not have a clue what you are talking about.  Zero clue.  No medical person I know would be blindly speculating like you have been.   Do you understand that the police having probable cause is not proof that Mrs. Lowery did this?  She may in fact be found guilty after experts are put on the stand which can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Lowery was the only person who could have done this, but you as usual jump to conclusions without proof.  I will await the experts, and do not take this personal, but you are not an expert on SBS.....not even close.

No way am I an expert...same goes for you.

2seaoat wrote: but you as usual jump to conclusions without proof.  I will await the experts, and do not take this personal, but you are not an expert on SBS.....not even close.

You rush to judgment in defending the sitter without having any first hand knowledge as to the facts of this case. You claim the high road about waiting for facts and to hear from the experts.

However, in the Ferguson case you were able to come to an absolute conclusion within 10 minutes of reading the first news reports. No waiting on facts and experts there.

Do you just pick and choose in which matters to apply your standards?

You rush to judgment in defending the sitter without having any first hand knowledge as to the facts of this case. You claim the high road about waiting for facts and to hear from the experts.

However, in the Ferguson case you were able to come to an absolute conclusion within 10 minutes of reading the first news reports. No waiting on facts and experts there.

Do you just pick and choose in which matters to apply your standards? Rolling Eyes



Wrong again. In Ferguson, I only wanted a trial. I have been absolutely consistent on that without variation. Thank you for making up chit. Here, I wanted an investigation by medical experts, and then if those experts agreed charge somebody and have a trial. They did not do that, but they did charge her immediately without a proper medical investigation bringing in experts. She was denied bond before this child ever died or a proper autopsy was performed. My standards are consistent and always in search of justice. You however, by misquoting my position show that you have another agenda.

2seaoat wrote:You rush to judgment in defending the sitter without having any first hand knowledge as to the facts of this case. You claim the high road about waiting for facts and to hear from the experts.

However, in the Ferguson case you were able to come to an absolute conclusion within 10 minutes of reading the first news reports. No waiting on facts and experts there.

Do you just pick and choose in which matters to apply your standards? Rolling Eyes



Wrong again.  In Ferguson, I only wanted a trial.  I have been absolutely consistent on that without variation.  Thank you for making up chit.   Here, I wanted an investigation by medical experts, and then if those experts agreed charge somebody and have a trial.   They did not do that, but they did charge her immediately without a proper medical investigation bringing in experts.  She was denied bond before this child ever died or a proper autopsy was performed.  My standards are consistent and always in search of justice.  You however, by misquoting my position show that you have another agenda.

October 27th 2014, 6:21 pm


Your words Seaoat......."I am telling you right now there is no way this woman shook a baby and caused harm to that baby.  No way. "

Your words Seaoat......."I am telling you right now there is no way this woman shook a baby and caused harm to that baby. No way. "

I stand by those words. Where a SA brings immediate criminal charges without expert review of the evidence by multi medical expert sources, and then denies bond, the very suggestion by those carrying out injustice cannot be given credence or any validity. This person was charged, jailed, and bond denied without a scintilla of expert medical evidence that this baby was shaken. I have posted repeated links which show that falls, preexisting genetic defect, and other injuries other than shaking have put innocent persons in jail. So, yes, I stand by those words because to say anything other than that is the worse kind of fantasy.....it is a lynch mob making up stuff as they go. Immediate charges, bond denied, and jail.......justice screams for this whole thing to stop, until the science catches up to the hysteria.

2seaoat wrote:Your words Seaoat......."I am telling you right now there is no way this woman shook a baby and caused harm to that baby.  No way. "

I stand by those words.  Where a SA brings immediate criminal charges without expert review of the evidence by multi medical expert sources, and then denies bond, the very suggestion by those carrying out injustice cannot be given credence or any validity.   This person was charged, jailed, and bond denied without a scintilla of expert medical evidence that this baby was shaken.  I have posted repeated links which show that falls, preexisting genetic defect, and other injuries other than shaking have put innocent persons in jail.   So, yes, I stand by those words because to say anything other than that is the worse kind of fantasy.....it is a lynch mob making up stuff as they go.  Immediate charges, bond denied, and jail.......justice screams for this whole thing to stop, until the science catches up to the hysteria.

Where a SA brings immediate criminal charges without expert review of the evidence by multi medical expert sources,.........


The Freguson case. You wanted him charged immediately.

Your words Seaoat.....The charges should have been brought within 72 hours after taking those witness statements, but the statements were not taken, the report was not filed as they carefully constructed a story which gave the officer the best chance.

The Freguson case.

Your words Seaoat.....The charges should have been brought within 72 hours after taking those witness statements, but the statements were not taken, the report was not filed as they carefully constructed a story which gave the officer the best chance.



My words are exactly correct. There is no expert needed to determine what killed the defendant. There is no expert needed to determine that the decedent was unarmed. There is no expert needed to determine the body was a good distance from the officer's vehicle. Why were the witness statements not taken, and why was the police report not immediately released. This case would have been filed within 72 hours in almost any jurisdiction in America. The trial may prove that the officer met the supreme court standard, but the failure to take witness statements, file the required police report, and not file charges all indicate that justice is not the goal.

Here by immediately charging her before multiple experts could review the evidence, throwing her in a jail cell, and denying bail, it is clear in America another injustice may be happening. Let me ask you this.....do you think Mrs. Lowery will be extended the courtesy to address the grand jury? My positions remain consistent and correct.

2seaoat wrote:The Freguson case.

Your words Seaoat.....The charges should have been brought within 72 hours after taking those witness statements, but the statements were not taken, the report was not filed as they carefully constructed a story which gave the officer the best chance.



My words are exactly correct.  There is no expert needed to determine what killed the defendant.  There is no expert needed to determine that the decedent was unarmed.   There is no expert needed to determine the body was a good distance from the officer's vehicle.   Why were the witness statements not taken, and why was the police report not immediately released.   This case would have been filed within 72 hours in almost any jurisdiction in America.  The trial may prove that the officer met the supreme court standard, but the failure to take witness statements, file the required police report, and not file charges all indicate that justice is not the goal.

Here by immediately charging her before multiple experts could review the evidence, throwing her in a jail cell, and denying bail, it is clear in America another injustice may be happening.   Let me ask you this.....do you think Mrs. Lowery will be extended the courtesy to address the grand jury?  My positions remain consistent and correct.

You made those statements while agreeing Brown was shot in the back. In that case you did not want to wait on an autopsy report......you refused to consider he assaulted the officer, you refuse to believe he was a fleeing felon, you believed his strong armed robbery was unnecessary information. Yet you have stated many times to show where Mrs. Lowery has previously abused children. Sounds like pick and choosing.

they had this story on the news tonight I just found out she didn't need a license otherwards for some odd dang reason she didn't need one omg--why not? I thought everyone who watches children that is running a daycare would need license . Why do some have to and some don't I wonder , They said when you have a license you have inspectors come in and make sure they children the right diet , They inspect the whole home one of her friends said she has a day care the same and is worried also about her day care. Im sorry But if I do take my daughter to day care I want them to have a license.
If she had a license though she may could have something on her side like a history of checks but no ,no license.----the way they explained it vets need a license for dogs,---when you put your mother sayin a older folks home they need a license , But when it comes to our children some don't need license ??????????

cool1 wrote:that's what scares me if they don't have it right someone is still out there say the time frame is off or anything or another doc says something else .  If that were the case and they don't have everything down to the tee, It could have been the mother or father , I don't know

Maybe they just couldn't take the risk since it was a daycare . I have no idea . It seams though they just wouldn't arrest her right then if she didn't do it .  But it has happened , goodness I don't know  

No Cool, they do arrest people "right then". They arrested that mother of the brain damaged child on the belief she caused the bruises on the child when it was his condition. I don't know about this case though. I'll bet if you have another expert come in he will have a different opinion.

cool1 wrote:they had this story on the news tonight I just found out she didn't need a license otherwards for some odd dang reason she didn't need one omg--why not?  I thought everyone who watches children that is running a daycare would need license . Why do some have to and some don't I wonder , They said when you have a license you have inspectors come in and make sure they children the right diet , They inspect the whole home one of her friends said she has a day care the same and is worried also about her day care. Im sorry But if I do take my daughter to day care I want them to have a license.
If she had a license though she may could have something on her side like a history of checks but no ,no license.----the way they explained it vets need a license for dogs,---when you put your mother sayin a older folks home they need a license , But when it comes to our children some don't need license ??????????

The newspaper said DCF revoked her license when she got arrested.

The newspaper said DCF revoked her license when she got arrested.


That is correct. The biggest mistake I have seen over the years with licensing is the daycare operator does not get a business rider for operating a day care operation out of their home. In one case I am very familiar with the parents dropped off their two year old. The sitter would bath the children, and her hot water heater malfunctioned and the child was scalded with third degree burns. The daycare person admitted her negligence, but the homeowners policy refused any claim because she had not disclosed the operation of the day care center. The parents were stuck, and even though the daycare person offered to help pay for medical bills, there were skin grafts and hundreds of thousands in medical bills and the daycare center operator was basically judgment proof. I always recommend that parents see the insurance for the daycare operation, and if somebody says or shows a homeowner policy......red flag.

You made those statements while agreeing Brown was shot in the back.

This is flat out wrong again.   Please show my words where I said Brown was shot in the back.   I did say the armpit wound as discussed with the coroner and other law enforcement people on the O'donnell show did raise questions that the wound could not be determined with scientific certainty that it came from the front or back.  It was a glancing wound.  I await your made up statement to be confirmed by my words.  You will not find the same. However, based on the evidence the armpit wound could have come as Michael was running from the officer and did enter from the back of his body.

you refused to consider he assaulted the officer

Another flat out lie.  Please find any writing on this issue where I denied Brown had contact with the officer.  If you read anything I wrote, and was not just making things up, you will see I said clearly that if any shot in the squad had killed Brown, it would have been a justified shooting.   Please quit lying.  It is unnecessary.

you refuse to believe he was a fleeing felon

Another flat out lie, compounded by comprehension problems.  I pointed out the Supreme Court standard when an officer may shoot a suspect using deadly force.   The Supreme Court is very clear that their standard nullifies statutory standards by states concerning fleeing felons.   If the standard is met, the shooting is justified.  If it is not met, regardless of a felon, a misdemeanor, or no crime at all, the shooting is not justified.  Pay attention  and quit acting like you dropped your brain into a trick or treat bag Friday night......I guarantee you the kids who received it consider it a trick.

Yet you have stated many times to show where Mrs. Lowery has previously abused children.

With only probable cause, yet to be determined at the preliminary hearing this woman was arrested, jailed, and denied bond without a full scientific review by third party experts of the alleged injuries caused by Mrs. Lowery.  Somebody suggested that there were prior injuries to children.  I asked for proof of the same.  Not that it carries much relevancy, but when a person is being taken down by a lynch mob in the paper, it would be nice to show the innuendo which has been put in comments.  There is no innuendo or uncertainty on what killed Michael.......it was a bullet which blew his brains out.  The only question at trial will be was that bullet justified applying the Supreme Court standard.....but as I said earlier, I cannot wait to Mrs. Lowery is invited to speak to the grand jury.......justice is blind......unless it peaks from under the blindfold.