Shaken Baby Case is on trial now

I am overwhelmed with guilt. I wanted to visit her at the jail and talked about it with a neighbor. However, the husband was very unfriendly toward me the last time we briefly talked, and I felt like I was butting my nose into other people's problems. I am telling you I have never seen Denise look like she did in the photo in the PNJ. She was always clean and with a crisp hairstyle. She looked like she slept in that blouse. I was specifically told that two experts would be testifying on behalf of the defense and they were expensive. Now if they brought her into the courtroom looking like the PNJ photo which looks like she had not showered in a week and had a tattered old blouse, they sure as hell should not have let her take the stand without expert testimony.

I do not like any courtroom in America having an organized demonstration for one side. The colored tee shirts should never have been allowed. She appears to have gotten no defense because without experts to review the medical evidence, she was done. I agree. Something is terribly wrong here, and nobody is going to come to this woman's rescue.

Were any of the Drs. shaken baby experts? This reminds me of that 19 yr. old mother w/ the brain damaged child who they accused of neglecting the child when he died. It was until the organization of that disease clarified it was common in those children to have the bedsores he had. They had Drs. testifying but they were clueless about his condition.

Experts are expensive. A doctor to review the medical records and render a expert opinion in writing who would be willing to testify could cost upward of $25,000.00, and those practicing doctors are extremely difficult to schedule for depositions and trial testimony. To allow this to go to trial without a defense medical expert is a travesty of justice. The fact that the jury took five hours is incredible. Some jury members were not convinced, but without a defense where reasonable doubt could be rendered it was a turkey shoot. Many times you spend all your money on the initial report, and have no money for the trial testimony. There house was foreclosed.

People don't realize this could happen to anybody. If you're accused of a crime and you don't have money you're a goner and that's just a fact.Poor people are screwed everyday. Just look at that poor young girl accused of neglecting her mother? She'll get 12 years minimum for aggravated manslaughter.

If you are indigent in a criminal case, the state pays for your attorney and for the costs of your defense. She had two defense expert witnesses. She would have had three, but after he investigated his findings were not helpful to the defense so they dismissed him.

Her main expert witness was Dr. Edward Willey. Do a Google search on him. He is an admitted "skeptic" and thinks Shaken Baby Syndrome is a myth. He testified that the child had brain abnormalities that, coupled with a little block being thrown at him, caused the vein bleed. However, on cross-examination when he was confronted with certain facts, he conceded that there was no abnormality. Dr. Minyard, the medical examiner, gave rebuttal testimony to his testimony and blew him out of the water. If the facts were favorable to her, don't you think they could have purchased a better witness?

The cause of this child's death was Shaken Baby Syndrome with blunt force trauma. There was overwhelming evidence. Four out of the six jurors were nurses, so they should have had a good grasp of the medical testimony.

I understand that people who know the defendant just cannot believe she could do something like this. She may be a good person who did something wrong. We all have done things wrong in our lives. Fortunately, most of those wrong actions do not have catastrophic results. That was not the case here.

Vikingwoman wrote:People don't realize this could happen to anybody. If you're accused of a crime and you don't have money you're a goner and that's just a fact.Poor people are screwed everyday. Just look at that poor young girl accused of neglecting her mother? She'll get 12 years minimum for aggravated manslaughter.

This case too had a defense expert paid for by the State of Florida. Again, there was overwhelming evidence that led to this young woman's conviction. Her mother died a horrible death, and was actually in a state of decay prior to her death.

2seaoat wrote:I thought you were joking.   Five hours with the courtroom filled with color coordinated orange shirts......yep, I probably will not live long enough to see the appeal, but it will come, and an innocent woman has been convicted of a crime she did not do, but we live and die by the jury system, and in Santa Rosa County that is a rigged game.   Thankfully we have appellate courts.

The defendant's side all wore color coordinated ribbons.

QueenOfHearts wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:People don't realize this could happen to anybody. If you're accused of a crime and you don't have money you're a goner and that's just a fact.Poor people are screwed everyday. Just look at that poor young girl accused of neglecting her mother? She'll get 12 years minimum for aggravated manslaughter.

This case too had a defense expert paid for by the State of Florida.  Again, there was overwhelming evidence that led to this young woman's conviction.  Her mother died a horrible death, and was actually in a state of decay prior to her death.

What was the overwhelming evidence? The mother had acute pneumonia and heart disease. Neglect was a contributing factor -not the cause. She should have been charged w/ neglect not manslaughter.

QueenOfHearts wrote:If you are indigent in a criminal case, the state pays for your attorney and for the costs of your defense.  She had two defense expert witnesses.  She would have had three, but after he investigated his findings were not helpful to the defense so they dismissed him.

Her main expert witness was Dr. Edward Willey.  Do a Google search on him.  He is an admitted "skeptic" and thinks Shaken Baby Syndrome is a myth.  He testified that the child had brain abnormalities that, coupled with a little block being thrown at him, caused the vein bleed.  However, on cross-examination when he was confronted with certain facts, he conceded that there was no abnormality.  Dr. Minyard, the medical examiner, gave rebuttal testimony to his testimony and blew him out of the water.  If the facts were favorable to her, don't you think they could have purchased a better witness?

The cause of this child's death was Shaken Baby Syndrome with blunt force trauma.  There was overwhelming evidence.  Four out of the six jurors were nurses, so they should have had a good grasp of the medical testimony.

I understand that people who know the defendant just cannot believe she could do something like this.  She may be a good person who did something wrong.  We all have done things wrong in our lives. Fortunately, most of those wrong actions do not have catastrophic results.  That was not the case here.

You do know you're given so much money when you're indigent? Usually very little to what it actually costs.

QueenOfHearts wrote:If you are indigent in a criminal case, the state pays for your attorney and for the costs of your defense.  She had two defense expert witnesses.  She would have had three, but after he investigated his findings were not helpful to the defense so they dismissed him.

Her main expert witness was Dr. Edward Willey.  Do a Google search on him.  He is an admitted "skeptic" and thinks Shaken Baby Syndrome is a myth.  He testified that the child had brain abnormalities that, coupled with a little block being thrown at him, caused the vein bleed.  However, on cross-examination when he was confronted with certain facts, he conceded that there was no abnormality.  Dr. Minyard, the medical examiner, gave rebuttal testimony to his testimony and blew him out of the water.  If the facts were favorable to her, don't you think they could have purchased a better witness?

The cause of this child's death was Shaken Baby Syndrome with blunt force trauma.  There was overwhelming evidence.  Four out of the six jurors were nurses, so they should have had a good grasp of the medical testimony.

I understand that people who know the defendant just cannot believe she could do something like this.  She may be a good person who did something wrong.  We all have done things wrong in our lives. Fortunately, most of those wrong actions do not have catastrophic results.  That was not the case here.

What was the blunt force trauma? Blunt force is being hit on the head. How was the side of his bruised?

QueenOfHearts wrote:If you are indigent in a criminal case, the state pays for your attorney and for the costs of your defense.  She had two defense expert witnesses.  She would have had three, but after he investigated his findings were not helpful to the defense so they dismissed him.

Her main expert witness was Dr. Edward Willey.  Do a Google search on him.  He is an admitted "skeptic" and thinks Shaken Baby Syndrome is a myth.  He testified that the child had brain abnormalities that, coupled with a little block being thrown at him, caused the vein bleed.  However, on cross-examination when he was confronted with certain facts, he conceded that there was no abnormality.  Dr. Minyard, the medical examiner, gave rebuttal testimony to his testimony and blew him out of the water.  If the facts were favorable to her, don't you think they could have purchased a better witness?

The cause of this child's death was Shaken Baby Syndrome with blunt force trauma.  There was overwhelming evidence.  Four out of the six jurors were nurses, so they should have had a good grasp of the medical testimony.

I understand that people who know the defendant just cannot believe she could do something like this.  She may be a good person who did something wrong.  We all have done things wrong in our lives. Fortunately, most of those wrong actions do not have catastrophic results.  That was not the case here.

Thank you.

The defendant's side all wore color coordinated ribbons.

Utter nonsense. There should be an immediate motion for a mistrial based on the judge not controlling the courtroom and turning this into some kind of sporting event. Utter nonsense that this woman had competent medical experts because to only have three look at her case is malpractice on the face of it, and funding was not a blank check. This is simply a case of the working poor not being given even a semblance of justice in our court system.

Tasa and Amfs expert witnesses are plentiful and expensive. It easily could have cost over a 100k to get four or five doctors to review the medical evidence. Are you suggesting that Santa Rosa County gave a blank check. Of course not, this is a miscarriage of justice and it has NOTHING to do with knowing the lady, and it has everything to do with poor people in America not getting fair trials. One expert to testify in a trial which had four or five prosecuting witnesses.....are you serious. It was a travesty. At least a mob did not drag her out of her cell and hang her because from where I sit there was no justice for Brodie or Denise, and two wrongs do not make a right.

The worst part is the condition of her hair and her blouse for trial. Being indigent and poor in a system which only gives justice to the rich is no system of justice. Are you telling me her hair could not be done and she could not get a proper trial dress? Six local nurses on a jury, tell me how that luck happens with Jury duty? In my entire life, I have never seen six nurses serve on a jury. First, how was it so many nurses were called into the jury pool, and second why did the defense not object? The defense if competent should have with cause objected to any health care professionals with local ties to medical facilities who were rendering medical opinions. What a travesty. The worse part....people think six nurses on a jury is normal. It is not. No competent attorney on a medical malpractice case would allow medical professionals on a jury for bias, just like attorneys are usually kicked off juries, yet six were seated in a murder trial without any direct evidence connecting this defendant but for medical evidence..........justice....in Santa Rosa County.....I think not.

2seaoat wrote:The worst part is the condition of her hair and her blouse for trial.  Being indigent and poor in  a system which only gives justice to the rich is no system of justice.  Are you telling me her hair could not be done and she could not get a proper trial dress?   Six local nurses on a jury, tell me how that luck happens with Jury duty?  In my entire life, I have never seen six nurses serve on a jury.  First, how was it so many nurses were called into the jury pool, and second why did the defense not object?   The defense if competent should have with cause objected to any health care professionals with local ties to medical facilities who were rendering medical opinions.  What a travesty.  The worse part....people think six nurses on a jury is normal.  It is not.  No competent attorney on a medical malpractice case would allow medical professionals on a jury for bias, just like attorneys are usually kicked off juries, yet six were seated in a murder trial without any direct evidence connecting this defendant but for medical evidence..........justice....in Santa Rosa County.....I think not.

Since you mentioned her appearance and attire...I agree. Her attorneys were well groomed and dressed. There client should have been dressed for court. Hair, makeup, and clothing. That is on her attorneys.

The jury pool should have had better defense scrutiny.

Vikingwoman wrote:

QueenOfHearts wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:People don't realize this could happen to anybody. If you're accused of a crime and you don't have money you're a goner and that's just a fact.Poor people are screwed everyday. Just look at that poor young girl accused of neglecting her mother? She'll get 12 years minimum for aggravated manslaughter.

This case too had a defense expert paid for by the State of Florida.  Again, there was overwhelming evidence that led to this young woman's conviction.  Her mother died a horrible death, and was actually in a state of decay prior to her death.

What was the overwhelming evidence? The mother had acute pneumonia and heart disease. Neglect was a contributing factor -not the cause. She should have been charged w/ neglect not manslaughter.

She would not have died from the heart disease and pneumonia if not for the neglect. She was in a state of decay while she was still alive. She was covered in bedsores. They were so bad you could see all the way to her bone. She had not been given proper nourishment. The woman had insect larvae in her pubic hair and vaginal area because she was not changed and cleaned as she should have been. Etc. etc. etc. When the neglect leads to death, it is manslaughter.

Vikingwoman wrote:

QueenOfHearts wrote:If you are indigent in a criminal case, the state pays for your attorney and for the costs of your defense.  She had two defense expert witnesses.  She would have had three, but after he investigated his findings were not helpful to the defense so they dismissed him.

Her main expert witness was Dr. Edward Willey.  Do a Google search on him.  He is an admitted "skeptic" and thinks Shaken Baby Syndrome is a myth.  He testified that the child had brain abnormalities that, coupled with a little block being thrown at him, caused the vein bleed.  However, on cross-examination when he was confronted with certain facts, he conceded that there was no abnormality.  Dr. Minyard, the medical examiner, gave rebuttal testimony to his testimony and blew him out of the water.  If the facts were favorable to her, don't you think they could have purchased a better witness?

The cause of this child's death was Shaken Baby Syndrome with blunt force trauma.  There was overwhelming evidence.  Four out of the six jurors were nurses, so they should have had a good grasp of the medical testimony.

I understand that people who know the defendant just cannot believe she could do something like this.  She may be a good person who did something wrong.  We all have done things wrong in our lives. Fortunately, most of those wrong actions do not have catastrophic results.  That was not the case here.

You do know you're given so much money when you're indigent? Usually very little to what it actually costs.

It is not a set amount. The defendant will file a motion, and (as an example) will state that they want to hire expert witness X. That expert requires X$ to evaluate the case. They ask for that amount. The state gives it to them. And so on and so on with the expenses that are needed. That also includes costs of things such as hiring process server to serve subpoenas, court reporters to take and transcribe depositions, investigator to investigate the case, etc. The State is not the enemy. The defendant has a right to a fair trial and they need resources to ensure that. The State wants them to have a fair trial. No one wants to convict an innocent person.

2seaoat wrote:The defendant's side all wore color coordinated ribbons.

Utter nonsense.  There should be an immediate motion for a mistrial based on the judge not controlling the courtroom and turning this into some kind of sporting event.   Utter nonsense that this woman had competent medical experts because to only have three look at her case is malpractice on the face of it, and funding was not a blank check.  This is simply a case of the working poor not being given even a semblance of justice in our court system.

Tasa and Amfs expert witnesses are plentiful and expensive.   It easily could have cost over a 100k to get four or five doctors to review the medical evidence.  Are you suggesting that Santa Rosa County gave a blank check.  Of course not, this is a miscarriage of justice and it has NOTHING to do with knowing the lady, and it has everything to do with poor people in America not getting fair trials.  One expert to testify in a trial which had four or five prosecuting witnesses.....are you serious.   It was a travesty.   At least a mob did not drag her out of her cell and hang her because from where I sit there was no justice for Brodie or Denise, and two wrongs do not make a right.

The State of Florida pays for the expenses, not the County of Santa Rosa. They were provided enough money to hire several expert witnesses. But these experts can only work with the facts that they are presented.

2seaoat wrote:The worst part is the condition of her hair and her blouse for trial.  Being indigent and poor in  a system which only gives justice to the rich is no system of justice.  Are you telling me her hair could not be done and she could not get a proper trial dress?   Six local nurses on a jury, tell me how that luck happens with Jury duty?  In my entire life, I have never seen six nurses serve on a jury.  First, how was it so many nurses were called into the jury pool, and second why did the defense not object?   The defense if competent should have with cause objected to any health care professionals with local ties to medical facilities who were rendering medical opinions.  What a travesty.  The worse part....people think six nurses on a jury is normal.  It is not.  No competent attorney on a medical malpractice case would allow medical professionals on a jury for bias, just like attorneys are usually kicked off juries, yet six were seated in a murder trial without any direct evidence connecting this defendant but for medical evidence..........justice....in Santa Rosa County.....I think not.

Both sides participate in selecting a jury.  I presume that the defense must have thought it would be beneficial to have nurses on the jury, otherwise they would have been stricken.  I only pointed out that there were nurses on the jury because you earlier said that the jury could not have understood the medical evidence.  You are saying here, "No competent attorney on a medical malpractice case would allow medical professionals . . . ."  This had nothing to do with medical malpractice or a medical standard of care.

2seaoat, there is no point in responding to all of your allegations. You are making comments about something that you really do not know about. You have made comments about how the legal system works and they are totally inaccurate comments. You did not sit through this trial, you did not hear any testimony, you did not read or hear any evidence at all. You are stating your "facts" and opinion simply based on your "friendship" with the defendant.

In that regard, what a crappy friend you are to this woman. This woman has sat in jail for almost three years. You never visited her, supposedly because her husband was hostile to you years ago. That should not have stopped you from visiting her. Even if you thought that was a legitimate reason, what else did you do for her? Did you ever mail a letter to her in jail? Send a card during the holidays to boost her spirit? What about sending a card of encouragement, just telling her that you're thinking about her? Did you put $20 in her commissary account? Did you send a card to her family letting them know that you're thinking about them, enclosing a check to help them with their financial difficulties? I bet you did not do a damn thing. The extend of your friendship has probably not been anything more than posting on this, and maybe other, forums. Who needs a friend like you?

Joanimaroni wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The worst part is the condition of her hair and her blouse for trial.  Being indigent and poor in  a system which only gives justice to the rich is no system of justice.  Are you telling me her hair could not be done and she could not get a proper trial dress?   Six local nurses on a jury, tell me how that luck happens with Jury duty?  In my entire life, I have never seen six nurses serve on a jury.  First, how was it so many nurses were called into the jury pool, and second why did the defense not object?   The defense if competent should have with cause objected to any health care professionals with local ties to medical facilities who were rendering medical opinions.  What a travesty.  The worse part....people think six nurses on a jury is normal.  It is not.  No competent attorney on a medical malpractice case would allow medical professionals on a jury for bias, just like attorneys are usually kicked off juries, yet six were seated in a murder trial without any direct evidence connecting this defendant but for medical evidence..........justice....in Santa Rosa County.....I think not.

Since you mentioned her appearance and attire...I agree. Her attorneys were well groomed and dressed. There client should have been dressed for court. Hair, makeup, and clothing. That is on her attorneys.

The jury pool should have had better defense scrutiny.

She actually had a couple of very good defense attorneys. Maybe there was a reason for her presentation. Maybe they thought she'd appear more sympathetic looking the way she did, versus glamming her up a little bit.

QueenOfHearts wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The worst part is the condition of her hair and her blouse for trial.  Being indigent and poor in  a system which only gives justice to the rich is no system of justice.  Are you telling me her hair could not be done and she could not get a proper trial dress?   Six local nurses on a jury, tell me how that luck happens with Jury duty?  In my entire life, I have never seen six nurses serve on a jury.  First, how was it so many nurses were called into the jury pool, and second why did the defense not object?   The defense if competent should have with cause objected to any health care professionals with local ties to medical facilities who were rendering medical opinions.  What a travesty.  The worse part....people think six nurses on a jury is normal.  It is not.  No competent attorney on a medical malpractice case would allow medical professionals on a jury for bias, just like attorneys are usually kicked off juries, yet six were seated in a murder trial without any direct evidence connecting this defendant but for medical evidence..........justice....in Santa Rosa County.....I think not.

Since you mentioned her appearance and attire...I agree. Her attorneys were well groomed and dressed. There client should have been dressed for court. Hair, makeup, and clothing. That is on her attorneys.

The jury pool should have had better defense scrutiny.

She actually had a couple of very good defense attorneys.  Maybe there was a reason for her presentation.  Maybe they thought she'd appear more sympathetic looking the way she did, versus glamming her up a little bit.

I don't know, perhaps.

I think she was guilty, I think she snapped and she knew it as did her husband. She did have a conversation (recorded I believe) with her husband about locating their passports. This was prior to the no bond issue.

Vikingwoman: I forgot to answer your question about the blunt force trauma. The pediatric neurosurgeon found a large bruise on the back/side of the child's scalp. The coroner found a large amount of blood under that bruising. It was her opinion that the child's head hit something while he was being shaken.

Oh now we're talking! The child had a large bruise on the side/back of his head and they couldn't rule out he fell? How many shaken baby cases have large bruises on their heads? This takes on a whole nother perspective.

Utter and complete nonsense. The reason you do not seat a nurse, a doctor, or a lawyer on a medical malpractice case is that they will bring things into the jury room which is not in evidence. This case was entirely circumstantial medical evidence. Again, how do six nurses get in the jury pool in the first place, let alone after selection? This woman did NOT have justice. It has nothing to do with my knowing her. She never was a friend just a person I met who extended kindness to me when she knew I was sick by bringing me a pepsi on a very hot day. She was a kind woman. She helped other people during Ivan while her 10 year old son and husband were homebound with five feet of water in the house. The only thing you have right on this miscarriage of justice is that I did nothing to help this woman when I most certainly could have if I was healthy. I needed to get involved and make sure that proper tasa experts were reviewing her case, and this would have taken time and energy which would have become almost a full time job for a person dying from cancer and growing weaker each day living 1000 miles away most of the year. So that guilt will remain. It happened just as I feared.

Color coordinated shirts in a murder trial.....are you kidding me. The thought that these prosecutors were seeking justice is a fantasy.....they should have objected immediately to the t shirts. One medical expert in a murder trial. I have used three experts in some of my construction cases where it was only money damages which impacted my company. My daughter has prosecuted child abuse cases, and if you think prosecutors are seeking justice, you are living in an alternative universe. They were looking for immediate retribution to quell the mob and the politics of Santa Rosa County. Please tell me that no member of the child's family worked with the court or criminal justice system?

No this is the arrogance of a broken system, where there is no money for investigators, pathology, autopsy review, and medical review by competent experts. The biggest fallacy of your argument that a person had to attend the trial to see that the case was solid against her......again when she only brought one expert witness to the trial, and her lawyers allowed six nurses to be seated on a circumstantial medical case........you do not have to watch the Yankees play the pace high school baseball team to know the results.

The coroner found a large amount of blood under that bruising. It was her opinion that the child's head hit something while he was being shaken.


What shaking? Please tell me that if the coroner was looking at a deceased child and found evidence of some level of blunt force, that coroner would say that child was being shaken. It is absurd on the face of it. Some unknown blunt force within some time frame caused injury to the child, but how can you properly investigate the same when Denise was indicted immediately, and any other alternative was extinguished. Again, you do not have to watch every inning of the Pace baseball team getting slaughtered by the Yankees to know that the game was unfair. Poverty in America deprives the working poor of fair trials as the state has an unfair advantage.

Again, what shaking? Did Denise admit to shaking the child. Did her story about the other child and the block change? Did she give repeated different stories over her three year without bond squeeze by the state? Murder? Not one scintilla of direct evidence and a jury of six nurses.......appeal is certain.