O.C. Mother Released From Jail, All Charges Dropped

Source: WBOC News, Salisbury, MD / AP

09/19/2007 4:11 PM ET; Updated 09/20/2007 12:23 AM ET

SNOW HILL, Md. (WBOC/AP)- Ocean City police confirmed Wednesday afternoon that prosecutors have dropped all charges against a woman accused of murdering her newborn child back in 2004.

Supervisors at the Worcester County Jail said Christy Lynn Freeman, 37, was released at 3:45 p.m. Wednesday.

Freeman had been under investigation by police who found the remains of four fetuses in and outside her home nearly two months ago. As a result of the investigation, she was accused of killing one child in 2004 after she sought treatment at a local hospital in July. Freeman had been jailed without bond on first-degree murder and related charges...

Read more: http://www.wboc.com/global/story.asp?s=7099909

---

So much for the huge showdown over the rights of a fetus. No evidence, no case.

Freeman was originally charged with killing her unborn fetus in July, but those charges were later dropped after an autopsy showed that fetus was stillborn. Prosecutors later charged her with killing another child in 2004, based on interviews with Freeman.

leave it under the sink, or in a trunk? The authorities were correct to investigate, this is peculiar behavior. Didn't it stink?

I do believe that THAT is the basis of "Westminster derived law". You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that namby pamby bullshit.



I am amazed and disgusted by the people who scream blue murder for perfect jurisprudence when it's an obviously guilty arsehole up in front of the beak, and then turn around a scream for blood, when it's as obvious as dogs balls that there is some form of mental illness involved. And then hypocritically about face once again over "reproductive rights" when the obvious answer is the sterilisation of a woman demonstrably unable to raise a child, and also demonstrably a risk to any child in their care. 20-50 years in jail has exactly the same effect, so why not just spay her and save ourselves the millions of dollars it would otherwise cost to "protect" society from a menace that DOES NOT EXIST to anyone except whomsoever might spring from her loins if such is permitted, and which people much like you, demand be permitted in the name of her "reproductive rights".

It disgusts me, like nothing else, even paedophilia, that some people believe that a woman absolutely MUST be afforded the right to conceive and give birth. Yes she might be sick. True she might not be deserving of punishment. However, that does NOT give her the right to put a child (fruit of her own loins or not) in a position where their chances of death are significantly increased over the population averages.


ONE PERSON'S RIGHTS END EXACTLY AT THE POINT WHERE ANOTHER PERSON'S RIGHTS BEGIN.


Anyone who can not get their pointy little head around that simple concept, deserves no "rights" of their own. Unfortunately the law doesn't see it that way, so I'll just have to content myself with maintaining a full bladder if I ever encounter such a person in flames.

If your rights trump mine then "right back effing at ya" and let's see who has the bigger DICK.

Examples, please.

The moment there is a dead or raped child all sense of reason (and most humanity) flies out the window.


And it is not so much simultaneous contradictory thoughts as emotionally driven flip flopping dependent on victim, accused and the nature (not severity) of the crime.

Reproduction is the #1 species drive, right after breathing and eating.

It's a matter that defies logic; an over-rationalized society is a prison.

By the same non-logic my "right" to procreate should not be curtailed by my "chosen" partner's desire not to have sex with me. Indeed that's pretty much how the world worked for most of history. Humanity has, for the most part managed to evolve past rape. Isn't it time we did something about mothers who (figuratively) eat their own young and do it in a way that might be constructive, and would be preventative, rather than simply exacting some sort of revenge after the fact?

Isn't it time we did something about mothers who (figuratively) eat their own young and do it in a way that might be constructive, and would be preventative, rather than simply exacting some sort of revenge after the fact?

No. Reproduction is a biological imperative. Furthermore, I can't think of any failsafe, or relatively failsafe, method that does not involve manipulation of or otherwise having an effect on hormones. Fucking with hormones usually has some sort of consequences. May as well cut the "it's for society's good" crap and just execute someone.

Will ya?

Then men must be afforded the same opportunity to rape.

Note, I speak nothing of the legality of either act. For the record both are heinous crimes in my book.

But the misapplied logic is impeccable. Either both are invalid arguments or neither are.


The alternative to removing a killer mum's ability to have children is to take any further children born to her. Incarceration until menopause is not a guaranteed option any longer with fertility treatments. And those treatments will only continue to become more efficacious over time. How soon until the first 70 YO or older mum?


Anything done to protect a child after the fact, or to simply keep her from bearing children amounts to a punishment for what is a mental illness. There are only two surefire ways of preventing that illness from manifesting. And one allows her to live a relatively normal albeit child free life.

Offer it up as a choice to the mother. Incarceration in a secure mental facility until menopause (the best we can do with a parole never to access fertility/assisted conception treatments) or a period of treatment and a hysterectomy. It is either murder or an illness (which must be considered chronic).

I see no nexus between the various elements you present .....

(Why am I suddenly struck with the image of Norman Bates in a white cell looking at the fly ???)

Please dont try to explain ....

Then I argue that a man's right/desire to breed should be afforded equal consideration.

I'm making the point that your argument is as ridiculous as allowing rapists carte blanche.

No right is absolute. All rights have limits. One person's rights must always end where another's begin. No one individual is more equal or more deserving than another.


Sterilisation (enforced or voluntary) offers an option that is not purely punitive. In particular, it is not cruelly so as is forced removal of children after childbirth, since they may well unnecessarily suffer through further bouts of parturition triggered psychosis and must also suffer the loss of the child.

was never "caught." In the 1930s authorities could probably have found a half dozen fetuses or more buried in her yard, as in many other yards at the time. I had one of my own fetuses buried in the yard (in the late 60s I had a miscarriage at 16 weeks - at home). Miscarriages and stillborns. And that is the way most people handled fetuses and babies who were born dead in times gone by. The moral of this story is if you're pregnant and have a miscarriage or a stillborn you better get your ass to the hospital (with the dead fetus in your possession) to avoid being convicted of murder. I don't know if that is what happened in this case, but just saying. My parents never had it enter their minds that they should notify anyone or report the miscarriages to any authority. My parents were as good parents as anyone could ever want.