As with many murder cases, once the legal wrangling between defense and prosecution shifts into high gear everyone forgets what the case is all about. In Holly Ashcraft’s trial, the fact is that she tossed one (and most likely two) newborns into trash dumpsters. Normally, there would be the victim’s family standing in front of cameras on the steps of the courthouse, wearing ribbons or pictures of the deceased and serving as a reminder that the victim was a person–a fact that should not be lost despite the obfuscations of the legal process. But in this case the closest relative of the victim is Ashcraft, the person who tossed them into the trash. The father has never, publicly at least, come forward so baby X remains silent and largely forgotten.

That is the only way you can explain things like this statement from Ashcraft’s lawyer, Mark Geragos (who you will remember would pine on the virtues of another multiple murderer Scott Peterson):

“[Ashcraft was] within striking distance of putting this nightmare behind her.”

Geragos has done what all defense attorneys do, move the focus away from the crime and then narrow it solely on whether or not the DA can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes I understand the legal process but when dead babies are involved some shred of morality should be kept in mind. No one debates that she recklessly tried to deliver the children herself having lied about her pregnancy and putting her own self-interests ahead of the children by not seeking any form of prenatal care. No one debates she tossed the body of her second child (and probably the first since its body was never found) into a trash dumpster. Since these facts are not in debate, how can this nightmare be almost behind her? Because Geragos has moved the entire discussion to whether or not air in the lungs of the baby indicates that it was alive at the time that Ashcraft was stuffing it in a cardboard box.

So this is where we stand. The judge in the case, Judge David Wesley, is playing right along by publicly commenting on the issues with proving murder and child abuse. And perhaps the prosecution should suck it up and go with lesser (and presumably slam dunk charges) of involentary manslaughter and child endangerment. But it’s possible that even if convicted of these lesser charges Ashcraft would receive nothing more than she has already served. In other words a slap on the wrist.

So the prosecutors are working to keep their case alive by refiling it and hoping to get a judge with a “more generous view of the evidence” (their words) which Geragos terms a “last-ditch effort” and “gamesmanship”. Meanwhile no one is there to speak up for Holly’s trash can kids.

No matter what happens with the case we should forget about them or what Holly did to them.

Source: LA Times

tags: holly ashcraft Mark Geragos

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 am by Insider and is filed under Loons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.