Only Three Days until September!
Please Contribute Today!
Posted on 08/29/2013 6:44:39 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
The adult daughter of a woman whose baby was fatally shot in his stroller testified Wednesday that her mother's account of what happened that day didn't add up.
A defense lawyer called Ashley Glassey to testify in the murder trial of his client, De'Marquise Elkins, who is charged in the March 21 killing of 13-month-old Antonio Santiago in coastal Georgia.
Glassey's mother, Sherry West, has said she was walking home from the Brunswick post office with Antonio in a stroller when Elkins, 18, and another teen approached her and demanded money. After she told them she didn't have any, Elkins shot her in the leg and then shot the baby in the face, West has said.
Glassey, 21, lives in New Jersey and testified through tears that she had only seen her mother for a few hours on one occasion since she was 8 years old.
Glassey said her mother called her at 8:30 p.m. the day of the shooting. West told her daughter two kids had come up to her and asked for money and then shot the baby and then her when she said she had none, Glassey said. When Glassey asked for more details, West changed the story to say she was shot first and the baby second, Glassey said.
Glassey's grandmother had died the summer before and she had collected her grandmother's life insurance policy to cover expenses, Glassey said. Her mother knew that and called to ask how fast Glassey thought it would take for her to get the payment from a life insurance policy she had taken out on the baby.
"The whole conversation just didn't settle well with me," Glassey said.
(Excerpt) Read more at miaminewsday.com ...
It doesn't change the fact that a scumbag thug shot her baby in the face.
By the time this piece of crap lawyer gets through, they’ll be saying the baby committed suicide.
Revenge testimony.............
uh oh...
a life insurance policy on the baby?
not typical ghetto mom behavior
Glassey should be ashamed of herself for calling the police on her mother’s questions about the insurance.
The police didn’t give that phone call the time of day because it had nothing to do with the crime and the evidence they had.
Then she doubles down on her stupidity by calling the media when the police dismissed her.
Now her she is testifying to her stupidity in court.
She must have been dropped on her head as a baby. If not someone should do it for her now. It might knock some sense into her.
A $5,000 policy is nothing much more than a burial policy, not enough for a mother to murder her baby over. Also, if she did it, where’s the gun?
Yeah, about five minutes after one gets home from the hospital with their newborn, one receives a thing from "Gerber Life Insurance".
It used to be like a dollar a month or something. The benefits (or used to be) very limited the first five years.
Lots of people buy this insurance.
The 'insurance man' sells these policies. So does Gerber. They are a minimal low-premium policy designed to pay for funeral expenses.
I don't blame the defense attorney, he's just a PD trying to do his job in a slam dunk case. But the prosecutor knew this witness was coming, she's been whining to the media for months. I expect the cross-examination will be devastating, since anybody this messed up will have a ton of impeachment material.
and I still get stuff from Gerber Life Insurance some thirty odd years later.. Also, from Highlights For Children Magazine.
In what world is this testimony admissible?
It never ceases to amaze how similar stories with one or two essentially variations are reported so completely differently.
Sure. The baby said a racist thing and the life form shot her for “trayvon martin.”
The lawyer needs to get the same penalty as the murderer.
I assumed that this tragedy was the result of events described by the mother until I saw the tape of her responses to police questioning. This needs to be carefully sorted out. The black guys may be thugs with guns, but they also may be innocent.
I agree that a scumbag thug shot the baby in the face. What involvement, if any, that the mother had in it raises questions concerning whether or not they nabbed the correct scumbag thug, and the reliability of the mother's identification of the scumbag thug on trial. If the mother was involved, her identification of the defendant is worse than unreliable, it's positively exculpatory.
"Hi, Hon, sorry I haven't spoken to you in 15 years and gave you up for adoption when you were a baby. By the way, how long did you have to wait after Grammy died before you cashed her life insurance check?" Because that's the first thing most mothers think about after their baby is murdered in cold blood. I'm sorry, I am not on the jury and have not heard all the evidence, but based on the article, if I were on the jury, I believe that I would be inclined to acquit. The whole damned story has the Susan Smith/Charles Stuart aroma to it.
Chicken vs. Egg question:
Q: Which come first; a total lack of personal morals and ethics or law school?
A: Just shoot them!
it costs money to bury a child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.