Skip to comments.Gosnell Attorney: Baby Moving 20 Minutes After Neck Snipped “Wasn’t Alive
Posted on 04/23/2013 1:03:35 PM PDT by Morgana
The defense attorney for abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell attempted to make the case to the jury today that workers for Gosnell are exaggerating the importance of movements in babies Gosnell killed. He was successful in getting three of the seven murder counts dropped related to the babies.
The grand jury report indicated one baby was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.
But defense attorney Jack McMahon said the babies Gosnell killed in an abortion processing involving their live birth and eventual snipping of their necks and spinal cords were dead before they were actually born. He claimed any movement staffers saw after the fact was involuntary or reflexive and not an indication they were still alive after birth.
He told the court is ludicrous to claim that a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement.
If we are going in this room to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement, that is ludicrous, defense attorney Jack McMahon said.
Gosnells defense lawyer Jack McMahon argued that Williams only saw one arm, one movement, one spasm. This wasnt a baby moving! he said, when arguing that all counts against his client should be dropped.
McMahon argued that all first-degree murder charges should be dismissed, saying that one movement or breath is not enough to prove the babies were born alive.
If we are going in this room to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement, that is ludicrous, McMahon said.
Another report has more on McMahons opening defense:
In an exchange of impassioned arguments by both sides, Gosnells attorney, Jack McMahon, had argued that all seven murder counts should be dismissed because none were born alive, having been injected with death-producing drugs during the abortion process, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron countered that there was adequate testimony from former employees on whether the seven were born alive and that the jury should be allowed to decide.
The defense questioned testimony from staffers who said they had seen babies move, cry or breathe. McMahon argued that each testified to seeing only a single movement or breath.
There is not one piece not one of objective, scientific evidence that anyone was born alive, McMahon said. These are not the movements of a live child.
I am shocked that these counts have been dismissed. I have heard testimony by very credible witnesses to the effect that these babies were murdered in cold blood by Gosnell as they cried and struggled for life. We pray that justice will be done in the remaining five victims of Gosnells horrific slayings, said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue, who has observed the trial and published first-hand accounts of the proceedings.
Testimony from the medical examiner and toxicologist has indicated that there was no evidence the babies were injected with Digoxin to ensure the babies were dead prior to the abortion, as the defense has claimed.
The medical examiner testified that tests were inconclusive as proof that the babies were born alive. However, the tests also did not prove the babies were dead prior to birth. Those inconclusive test results were overshadowed by the weight of testimony from witness after witness, who detailed how the babies were in fact living prior to being murdered through what one witness described as a virtual beheading.
If Gosnell gets off scot-free, that will send a message that murdering live babies and abortion patients is now acceptable behavior in America and that abortionists who engage in such depraved practices are above the law. This would put women and babies in grave danger more than they already face at abortion clinics throughout the nation, said Sullenger.
Why did he snip the neck then, to disfigure a corpse?
Why would he have done it on so many if there was no purpose to it since they were supposedly all dead already?
This is one of those cases, where, if I were the Defendant, I’m not sure I’d be angling for an acquittal. I don’t think I’d want to be released into the public since the details of this butcher shop have come to light.
It’d be like releasing Jeffery Dahmer back into public — probably more dangerous for Dahmer than anybody else. He’d have to go into witness protection, or something.
This wasnt a baby moving!
Then what was it you lowlife scum....a chicken?! Now I understand the joke about lawyers at the bottom of the ocean being a good start!
Did I seem to be kidding?
There’s been quite a bit of coverage in non-mainstream circles.
Obama said that he wouldn’t want to bestow protections of “life” upon such a “thing” since it isn’t the mother’s original CHOICE.