tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post8220950218346177525..comments2007-04-05T13:48:34.365-07:00Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652wjs@wesleyjsmith.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-50844038992001222252007-04-05T13:48:00.000-07:002007-04-05T13:48:00.000-07:00Lydia:<BR/><BR/>Sometimes it really *is* hard (and sometimes next to impossible) to tell what the cause of death is, despite advanced forensic science, just because sometimes something is missing, blurred, or looks different than it should in the body. Not defending anything - the parents did evil to their son and deserved to be severely punished, IMHO - but I felt it necessary to point that out 'cause a lot of people suffer from "CSI Syndrome," where they think that everything should add up as tightly as it does on television - almost nobody has *all* the kinds of state-of-the-art technology that the various CSI teams have at their disposal to get results right away, and even with the advances we've made in forensics, there are still tons of things that we can't tell about a particular crime.<BR/><BR/>Like I said, the parents were evil to do this, so this isn't to excuse them.T E Finehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02145212330537906750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-73286013827458268582007-04-04T17:48:00.000-07:002007-04-04T17:48:00.000-07:00I'm suspicious of the claim that the authorities found no specific cause of death. I have more confidence than that in modern forensic science. I can't help thinking that everyone knew from the beginning that the parents had murdered him, knew they'd get off with a slap on the wrist, and therefore the details of his death weren't ferreted out. Maybe the police felt it was hopeless or pointless. But it would sound more vivid to say, "Mr. ____ smothered his son with a pillow" than just to say, "His mother sedated him and his father killed him" with no more specifics.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I may be doing the police an injustice, because the crime was prosecuted. So perhaps the whole blame does lie with the sympathetic judge.Lydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-4698273701210505262007-04-04T12:48:00.000-07:002007-04-04T12:48:00.000-07:00From a reader: "And one more thing, they didn't wait to see the outcome of the surgery in terms of whether he would actually lose his hearing,<BR/>though this was supposedly their big reason."Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-59483846693311730182007-04-04T12:20:00.000-07:002007-04-04T12:20:00.000-07:00What a horrible story. And if the surgery he was facing was going to do him net harm, shouldn't the focus have been on whether perhaps to reject the surgery and treat the infection in some other way instead of killing him? So, the surgery was going to harm him. So instead you guys killed him. Brilliant choice.<BR/><BR/>That's horrific. They obviously should have gone to jail. What sort of message does this send? "Kill your severely disabled kids. Everyone will feel sorry for you and hug you and there will be no penalties."Lydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.com