I never said it was unheard of?

But there is no suggestion she killed the child on purpose? So, until that time it's just been pulled out of thin air just because? Just like LT's suggestion that she was on loads of meds... apparently simply because she was single.

I don't recall saying there wasn't.

There's been all kinds of cases about anything and everything.

OK, let me go through these.

First off, I have no issue with you personally at all. I've never knowingly backed away from any post you've ever directed at me. If you have an example then I'll go back and reply. I do remember our Hilary Clinton discussion though where I asked for evidence of her corruption and you provided nothing. There is nothing confrontational about my post.

The quote in my sig is hilarious. If you are offended by it and would like me to remove it then say, and I'll happily do that for you. When adding a quote to your sig, then they are all without context because of the limited character numbers we are allowed to use. Anyone wishing to read the full context, is perfectly able to do so by just clicking the little grey arrow thingy and it will take you straight to our conversation, which I would highly recommend because I found it really funny.

Now onto the content of this thread. You quoted something Jesus was supposed to have said So I just replied with something else Jesus was supposed to have said, and with a little bit of extra scripture thrown in for good measure. I don't understand why you deem your quote to be fine, and mine a personal attack on your character.

You say you have no problem with the study of the mind, but you've undercut your argument somewhat by labelling them "amongst the loopiest people in existence" You've also demeaned their work in other posts in the thread, so it's a completely valid question, that, despite your protestations, I was justified in asking. I would also like to know what an appalling expert actually is, so I'd be interested in reading your follow up.

I think you're being a little over sensitive my good man, but if there's anything I can do to allay your paranoia, I'd be happy to do so.

not yet, no so we just have to wait with our judgement until we know more i guess

TiBB doesn't wait.

Its the rush to absolve her that is the issue here, it probably is a tragic case but could also be the perfect crime as so many people are willing to believe her version of events, in contrast the general consensus regarding the woman who left the baby in a car outside Asda is that she should be charged with neglect, what if she claims she forgot her baby was in the car, will people just shrug their shoulders and go...new mother yeah she probably forgot ...never mind....next time you are driving clock how many times you check your rear view mirrors and catch sight of the back seat, she shouldn't be on the road if she is just driving with her eyes on the road ahead which is another issue!

I don't think that's fair at all.

People aren't rushing to absolve her. They're painting it using the only information we have at the moment.

One or two posters jump on "omg SINGLE! MOTHER!" and have thrown drugs into the mix with no other information just because.

I'm not saying she can't have murdered her child, but based on what we know of the case, it doesn't quite make sense. If it's a genuine case, Vicky's linked article explains it in great detail.

With more information/evidence and/or if she's charged with anything then people can re-evaluate their feelings on the matter. I just don't agree with throwing every scenario at this woman based on the fact that a mistake she made resulted in possibly the worst ever consequences. It seems rather unnecessarily vindictive IMO.

Edit - As for the ASDA story comparison, the difference is major. She purposely left her child in the car with full knowledge. That's also the difference between a tragic mistake and a crime - intent. I'm sure the police conduct an investigation into both to ensure any foul play or genuine neglect is held accountable.

I'm not sure thats true, I think that bit of 'fake news' was my fault. I conflated other parts of the story, and seemed to mix up a few aspects in with the article I had read last night too, unless there has been more reporting since then,.

Bloody 'ell Vicky! Check yer sources love! :oh:

Yeah, like holding down a 40g a year job...paying a mortgage on a 2nd house whilst renting out the other to another single mum.

All the time keeping 2 intelligent, funny friendly kids in line as they have grown into 2 mature kids at the ages of 14 and 11.....just like my little sister has managed to do.

And not a drug in sight. :clap1:

Wine saved the day.

:laugh: wine has been my saviour on a couple of occasions too. Playing both mum and dad whilst working is a hard job

:love:

In the days where the Mum stayed at home to look after the children, or the nanny etc, this just wouldn't have happened, and if it did, there would be a great deal more finger pointing.

These days, when there are single parent families struggling to pay the rent, stressed to the max, it's an accident waiting to happen. I am in no position to judge if someone was neglectful or not, but the environment now exists where it could either be a tragic accident or intentional. It's the environment that's wrong and needs fixing.

A very rewarding one as well i can imagine.:worship:

Of course Parmy....he's my world.....but wine helps at the end of a full days work, football practice, homework and dinner :laugh:

In a large glass perhaps!:laugh:

No need for the smart-Alec 'paranoia B.S. I'm not paranoid and you are not qualified to allay jack if I was.

As for the emboldened, I think you are being a little economical with the truth because once again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I ACTUALLY stated;

Nowhere did I 'label THEM as "amongst the loopiest people in existence" as you UNTRUTHFULLY claim, I actually wrote: "In my opinion, and as far as psychologists and psychiatrists are concerned, a great number of them need to heed the advice of Jesus in Luke 4.23; 'Physician, heal thyself' because they are among the loopiest people in existence.

Now, "a great number of them" is a FAR cry from stating ALL of them - got it, my good man? Good.

As for; "You've also demeaned THEIR work in other posts in the thread" this is rather vague - could you show me where this occurred? And by the term 'their' are you referring to ALL psychiatrists and Psychologists? Or 'some ' ?

This is horrific poor innocent child, I agree there's no way she could of forgotten her baby for so long :shocked: . This is the worst case of neglect .

She is either incompetent & stupid or has mental issues. There's people out there who would do anything to have kids , so it's truly sad to hear tragic stories like this

Having read up and researched the psychological explanations for this -after T.S's informative posts - and I admit that a combination of factors such as stress, sleep deprivation, an adverse emotional condition, and financial worries CAN cause this type of memory loss.

I accept that, but I am still left with questions which need answering and I cannot find any further details on this case despite extensively trying, so I am presuming below until further details do become available:

1) One would presume that the baby was in a baby seat in the back seats of the car.

2) One would also presume that upon arrival at the baby's nursery the mother would have to go through a routine of stopping the car and parking up, alighting from the driver's seat and going to the relevant rear passenger door, opening it,then spending a certain amount of time unfastening the baby seat and - dependent upon what type of baby seat is was - carry the baby or baby and seat, into the nursery, probably greeting and/or being greeted, by other people, before finally booking the baby in.

Now, if the baby seat is the type where the seat and the baby are removed and carried away, the back seats will be 'bare', if it was the type where only the baby is removed then the baby seat will still be in situ.

All in 2 above, is a relatively complex and lengthy ritual to be performed - a routine which has various possible 'memory joggers' if it HAS been performed and one which would surely be 'conspicuous by its absence' in one's memory if it has NOT just been performed.

It is not, after all, as simple as saying: "I forgot that I had not dropped the baby off." Or to be more exact in this case; "I THOUGHT I had dropped the baby off"

3) Anyway, with all the above done, the mother would have to walk out of the nursery, return to the car, unlock it and get into the driver's seat, buckle up her seat belt and drive away - again not a simple process in the context of this case.

4) Now, dependent upon what type of car it is, one would presume that every time the mother used her interior driving mirror SOME PART of the baby in its seat WOULD have been visible - would THIS fact NOT be another 'memory-jogger'?

5) I still cannot accept either, that ANY loving mother of a 3 months old baby could spend hours without thinking about her child - no matter what psychological pressures she was suffering from.

I'm sorry, but something within me won't accept that this tragic case is as simple as it is being made out to be and though I will cede that the mind is, indeed a very complex and fragile organ, this still does not sit right with me.

Perhaps time and the revealing of more details will tell.

And that is what puzzles me. Surely that's quite a significant part of the day. It puzzles me how she couldn't remember not stopping at the daycare centre, not taking her child out of the car, not registering him or speaking to the staff. I don't feel like that sort of thing would slip the mind of someone who is in the right frame of mind to be a mother... that's just how I feel.

any time i have ever forgotten something i've had an oh **** moment not long after. There is always a little trigger that makes you remember .... always. I can't imagine that being a long time at all with a new born baby, something that normal people would be thinking about sub-consciously almost constantly. It doesn't point categorically to intent, but it does raise serious flags

I do understand your skepticism Kirk but the fact is, humans are capable of carrying out a LOT of seemingly complex tasks with very little active conscious input. Have you not ever driven a familiar journey and then realised you can remember very little of that specific journey? Driving is in theory a relatively complex task - you're doing all sorts of things, constantly, checking for traffic, overtaking, avoiding pedestrians etc. but if you were to arrive somewhere and someone said, "half way through that journey at the Driverton roundabout, did you have to stop and let vehicles pass or did you manage to drive straight on?" most likely you would have NO idea.

Or a more dramatic yet very common example (my wife does this ALL the time); we all get in the car and head off to let's say the supermarket. 10 minutes into the drive, she realises she's driven us half way to her University instead, completely "on autopilot". No memory of taking the wrong turns or why we're there. And yet, she hasn't crashed the car or run a red light or hit a pedestrian so there are all sorts of complex decisions going on, but without any actual ACTIVE cognition at all.

Or all sorts of small examples I guess. Finding the milk you just bought on the hall table and then realising your keys and wallet are in the fridge. You took those keys out of your pocket, and put them there. In the fridge. You don't remember doing it, but there they are.

A specific example for me; I can manually settle fairly complex bets in my sleep. I can settle a bet for someone, manually searching the results, calculating rule 4's, whatever... Pay them out... Half an hour later that same person can query the payout and I'll be like "which bet?" and they'll say "why do you mean? The one you did for me half an hour ago..." and I straight up half the time don't remember that I've even SEEN that customer that day, let alone that I've settled their bet. I can "coast" a 10 hour shift with basically zero conscious input.

Basically the human mind is a complete shambles and most people are FAR from totally conscious a lot of the time.

Again that doesn't mean that it's impossible that someone might fake this to deliberately harm a child, certainly that's possible, but it's also genuinely a real thing and in most cases it is a tragic accident. I said earlier, it doesn't mean the circumstances shouldn't be looked at incase there IS a reason to suspect foul play, but in the first instance, it should be assumed that it was an accident and the parent supported for trauma. If its determined that it was deliberate later, then that's another matter. But this is the sort of situation where innocence should always be assumed until proven otherwise.

Its not just you Ashley

I think many think this way