Wow... i've heard of screwed up parenting before... but this is just wrong.

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Wow... i've heard of screwed up parenting before... but this is just wrong.
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

Posted by Silky Johnson on Jul-12-2007 15:30:

Oh, well the whole family was interviewed and there's no substantial evidence so far to say the child was or was not on E. When approached for questions, the family ran from the cameras/interviewers.

edit: The mother of the child is also claiming she had no idea that was going on with her child, or that the video was being made.

Posted by chach on Jul-12-2007 15:31:

Couldnt they simply drug test the child, or I guess they would need parental permission to do that right?

Posted by Silky Johnson on Jul-12-2007 15:32:

No idea...

Posted by Slylee on Jul-12-2007 15:32:

quote:
Originally posted by chach
Couldnt they simply drug test the child, or I guess they would need parental permission to do that right?

i would imagine that video is probable cause to collect such evidence without consent

Posted by FallingMoon on Jul-12-2007 15:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Slylee
i would imagine that video is probable cause to collect such evidence without consent

exactly wtf!!!

a drug test would tell all

BUUUUUUUUUT
that's the tricky part, x leaves the system in 3 days so isn't kind of late by now.

I'm sure it could be different in children but I think a toxicology report would not show anything UNLESS they do an extensive one which costs $$$ and these friggin' idiots seem to be putting a lot of excuses to avoid that.

Posted by Slylee on Jul-12-2007 15:41:

hair follicle test is more accurate.

Posted by FallingMoon on Jul-12-2007 15:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Slylee
hair follicle test is more accurate.

you can tell you work with attorneys.

haha.

but I agree that would be the most accurate one and it will show.

Posted by chach on Jul-12-2007 15:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Slylee
hair follicle test is more accurate.

Expensive as shit though I doubt they would waste their time and money on this singled out case, that is unless this gets a huge media uproar and people are all over this story.

Posted by aNYthing on Jul-12-2007 15:46:

quote:
Originally posted by FallingMoon
exactly wtf!!!

a drug test would tell all

BUUUUUUUUUT
that's the tricky part, x leaves the system in 3 days so isn't kind of late by now.

I'm sure it could be different in children but I think a toxicology report would not show anything UNLESS they do an extensive one which costs $$$ and these friggin' idiots seem to be putting a lot of excuses to avoid that.

Well, they could test the hair - that holds evidence FOR AS LONG AS YOU GOT HAIR.

But... prosecution of parents without concrete evidence - it's a potential liability/lawsuit. Esp. If there's no indication of drug in the system, the parents can sue for millions - claiming psychological damage to child, yada yada yada. Plus prosecution will also cost pretty penny and they have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that parents are responsible for this. Parents can easily say - oo - she foudn something on the street and took it, we had no idea. etc.

It's a messy and tricky situation. The only silver lining to the whole ordeal is that child is alive and hopefully will not suffer long term effects but most likely poor thing will.

Posted by BoReD365247 on Jul-12-2007 15:46:

This is quite possibly the simplest test to see if the eye rolling is indeed voluntary: Ask the little girl to do it again on command. If she can't then she was definitely under the influence of something. That could possibly be enough evidence to suggest the expensive hair follicle test.

Posted by Slylee on Jul-12-2007 15:52:

quote:
Originally posted by chach
Expensive as shit though I doubt they would waste their time and money on this singled out case, that is unless this gets a huge media uproar and people are all over this story.

yea what a waste of money to get to the bottom of a video of a bunch of young girls supposedly giving a 3 year old ecstasy

Posted by chach on Jul-12-2007 16:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Slylee
yea what a waste of money to get to the bottom of a video of a bunch of young girls supposedly giving a 3 year old ecstasy

You know what I meant silly

of course morally its not a waste of money but the truth is there is shit going on right now that is 10 times worse then this case.

Posted by Echo of Silence on Jul-12-2007 16:04:

If they gave the little girl ecstasy in the middle of June would it show up in a test performed now (almost a month later)?

And yeah, I agree with BoRed. If she was just clowning around for the video, she could clown around again for the investigators.

If she can't...

Posted by gehzumteufel on Jul-12-2007 16:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Echo of Silence
If they gave the little girl ecstasy in the middle of June would it show up in a test performed now (almost a month later)?

And yeah, I agree with BoRed. If she was just clowning around for the video, she could clown around again for the investigators.

If she can't...

if im not mistaken as long as the hair that was present at the time of ingestion/use is still present (as in it hasnt been cut or dyed/bleached) then yes it will show up.

Posted by Slylee on Jul-12-2007 16:51:

i'm pretty sure they can tell if a person has had one cigarette in the last 2 years from testing hair follicles.

Posted by cheshirepk8 on Jul-12-2007 18:55:

How did she not know the video was being made... she made a comment about how the camera kept focusing on the child. unbelievable.

yeah it costs money to test, but it's about principle here.

AND the kid was still in the back of a car behind a seat!
can't child service do anything about that?

good gravy why are some people allowed to procreate.

Posted by SpecialedXL on Jul-13-2007 15:43:

horrible

Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]