Current Events: The Trial of Kathryn Nadal

The trial of Kathryn Nadal is in closing arguments today. Yesterday, an investigator said Kathryn said she heard her baby whimpering and she went into the room to find Shorty on the bed licking the baby's genitals. She said she pushed the dog from the bed and went to a neighbor for help. She claimed the dog was again on the bed when she returned. DNA testing under one of Shorty's nails was too small to retest but they couldn’t exclude the baby’s DNA. (I assume they tested it but all of it was used up in that one test). Other witnesses had said that no bloody paw prints were anywhere in the house. Oops. Dogs clean themselves. But in one article connected to the case, Mr. Dega, Kathryn's neighbor, stated he saw no paw prints either. I don't know if the dog could've cleaned himself that quickly - seems residual blood would still be on the dog the day of the mutilation. But six days later, I can see why they would discover none.

Sure seems it's a battle of the experts. Two testified for State and both said the small Dachshund could not have caused clean wounds such as the baby had. A defense expert says a dog of Shorty's size and breed could've made the injuries. No weapon with DNA was found in the home. However, they discovered kitchen shears in Kathryn's bathroom. The news site mentions nothing in the articles of the shears having DNA on them.

I can't see how (from what I've read) Kathryn could not have blood on her clothing. According to one doctor, the baby had a severed artery in its leg and due to that, one leg may be shorter than the other as he grows. I think that since Holden had a severed artery then it wouldn't take long for him to bleed to death . . . and the paramedic did testify the baby was very pale.

Maybe I keep wanting to know more because I just don't see how Kathryn had time to clean herself up, discard clothing (where they couldn't be found), clean the shears and go to a neighbor for help and Holden not have bled to death. I keep wondering exactly what the paramedics did to stop the bleeding. Did they move the skin, clip away any, or did any come off on the bandages they used? Did the doctor who first treated him? The information in the write-ups doesn't give enough evidence in my opinion for any decision (by me) on she did/she did not do it. So, I will delay the mention of I think she is guilty or not guilty until I know more about what was said in court. I will say her shooting up the night before this happened doesn’t give me any supportive thoughts for her and her motherly abilities.

I just pray this jury listened carefully to all the evidence and comes to a just verdict. I hope enough evidence was presented.

An Aunt of Holden's (the dad's sister) stated that while at the hospital, Kathryn kept telling her dad (the father's dad) 'Don't have me, I didn't do this.' (That have should be hate?)

I keep thinking back to another dog mutilation case where they sent both parents to prison and later the defense discovered pictures that weren't presented in court or shown to the defense and they proved beyond any doubt that the parents did not mutilate their daughter.
　
　
I also keep wishing this woman was innocent, and that she simply was not strong enough emotionally to deal with a baby with colic to stay off the drug habit. But I can’t say with surety that she is innocent of the charges. I’m not sure if she is found NG that she should have another baby either. I just don’t want to think a mother could do such horrific things to her flesh and blood, her 5-week-old baby. But, I do know if I had all the facts to ponder and debate in my mind, then I’d reach a non prejudice or bias decision that I could live within my heart and mind. And one I’d believe would give justice to all concerned here.

One thing I can say for sure, if this woman did this horrible thing to her little baby, I don’t think she needs to ever walk in freedom again.


http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6964790