As noted in Ketch Up, there is something to be said about the fact that Ashcraft went from facing charges of murder three times, to having the case dismissed citing lack of evidence, and recently having bail reduced just last week. She expresses this sentiment in stating:
Seems to me that the authorities are going way to easy with this woman even though she has done this before. The prosecutors in this case continue to believe that Ashcraft's baby was born alive and she dumped it in the trash bin in order to get rid of her son while the defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, continues to argue that there is no evidence Ashcraft knew she was pregnant or that the baby was born alive. Also arguing that putting the child in a box in the dumpster was not intentional. What kind of defense is that?As appalling and as unbelievable as her crimes and acts may have been, the circumstances in the trials have been just as unbearable. And this is just for the 2005 incident. One would think that the previous incident in 2004 would corroborate charges and suspicions against Ashcraft, but so far, she hasn't faced anything near the justice that is necessary. Also pointed out is the fact that the defense lawyer, Geragos, is arguing that the woman did not know she was pregnant nor that it was alive. I would think that if you give birth and hear a baby crying, those would be pretty clear signs of whether you were pregnant and whether the baby was alive or not. But I guess that is the sticking point, that no one knows for sure if the baby was still-born or still alive when it was abandoned in the dumpster. At the same time, it is puzzling that he also argues for Ashcraft that abandoning the baby in the dumpster was not intentional. If so, did she accidentally throw her baby away? I'd like to see how you would do that.
In the concluding paragraph, Ketch Up noted:
Not only does this woman need a psychological evaluation but she needs to go to jail. She intentionally took the life of her two children and is not suffering any consequences. Holly continues to say she is not guilty. Only time will tell if Holly will ever have to go to jail. But it seems the longer this case continues, the more lenient the circumstances are for this woman.
1 comment:
The more I hear about the case the more frustrated that I get. The more facts that are released about this crazy the more guilty this woman appears. With stations all over our state that are set up for exactly this purpose I'm just curious her thought process about dumping her children. What about a room mate or friend who must have known that their friend was pregnant? The defense lawyer Mark Geragos who defended Scott Peterson, wants the jury to believe the woman didn't know she was pregnant. Geragos seems to be throwing out wacky defense tactics and hoping for people to believe them, and it seems to be working. The question that crosses my mind is how someone could do that, just like Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 children. I hope they throw this woman in jail for a very long time because she has not suffered any consequences at all, just her disposed newborns.
Post a Comment