Posted on 03/21/2006 6:38:34 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
Man did not rescue child for fear of 'pervert' slur
ALEX CORNELIUS
A BRICKLAYER who passed a toddler walking alone in a village shortly before her fatal fall into a pond said yesterday he did not stop to help in case people thought he was trying to abduct her.
Clive Peachey, from Cornwall, told an inquest jury in Stratford-upon-Avon that he had passed two-year-old girl, Abby Rae, in his van shortly after 10am on 28 November, 2002.
This was just moments after the toddler disappeared from the Ready Teddy Go nursery in the Warwickshire village of Lower Brailes, according to staff.
Abby was found an hour later in an algae-covered garden pond and rescued by her mother, Victoria Rae.
She was taken to Birmingham Children's Hospital by air ambulance but was pronounced dead.
Mr Peachey, of Liskeard, told the inquest he had passed the little girl as she tottered towards the road in High Street.
He said: "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't go back was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her.
"I was convinced her parents were driving around and had found her."
Mrs Rae, 36, wept as Mr Peachey gave his evidence to the packed hearing.
She had earlier read emotionally from a statement as she relived the moment she dragged her daughter from the pond.
Two nursery employees had gone into the garden during their search but told the inquest they did not see the pond because it was covered in green vegetation.
The inquest was adjourned until today.
Cell phone? Everyone's got one these days - what's to keep him from stopping the girl, putting a shirt on her, and calling the police?
Oceanview, if it wasn't you, I would post a pic of a livestock emasculator. Take that sentiment as my response.
So obviously you wouldn't step in front of a truck for a child. In such instance the rescuer is dead but the child is alive. In this instance the rescuer is worried about defending himself in a court of law while the child is dead. All he had to do was pick her up and stand on the street.
Maybe I'm too stupid and old. Maybe I wouldn't had done it if I were younger, I don't know. But the girl is dead because he didn't have the sense to pick her up and start yelling at the traffic for help?
I understand completely. I find that any "interest" I may take in children could ultimately be used to suggest I'm a molestor or something. That is so extremely loathesome to me, I will simply avoid the situation entirely. I don't and won't have children because my wife is unable. I so love and cherish my nieces and nephews I cannot fathom the heart of a molestor. It's not in my nature to understand evil I suppose. Who can harm an innocent like that? I mean...what mechanism is broken in their head? Whatever it is, I'm ok with fairly quick execution.
Not you. Right?
well, no man wants to face the wrath of the judicial system for a crime he didn't commit. just the allegation could wipe you out personally, and financially, to prove your innocence.
If one does a crime the courts have to prove you are guilty, but with an allegation you have to prove you are innocent which is almost impossible to do, we need new laws in this country on these alligations
Perfectly understandable. The inevitable result of an irrational culture of fear.
That is EXACTLY what is at issue here.
Oops - that sounded awful. Let me rephrase that as I meant it - what would you have done?
I can list for you what I think are the causes of this off the top of my head in my sleep. You can too, I bet. But let's look beneath the surface. Something's got to give, I always say. Start by making pederasty acceptable by naming it using a synonym for 'merriment', and end at the state of confusion, where pedophilia is in the public's mind disassociated from 'merry', but we just don't know and can't say what it is. Well, back to 'gaiety' and cluelessness...
Let's see, live girl and busted reputation, or dead girl and busted reputation?
Stupid decision.
--- --- --- --- ---
You conveniently forgot the most likely scenario: Live girl and intact reputation.
His decision was based on sound logic and high probability.
The mother is to blame for this mess.
She would have just as likely blamed him if he actually tended the daughter, probably accusing him of all types of bad things, since the mother would then have never known the parallel universe where he daughter died.
When my daughter was 2-1/2, many years ago, she fell and hit her cheek on a coffee table at her aunt's house. Tears and a suppy lip, but just a little redness. The next morning, when we went to her room to get her up, she had horrible swelling of her left eye. Swollen shut, to be exact. With a low grade fever. We rushed her to the hospital. En route, her temp soared and she had a febrile seizure while being admitted. Scared the dickens out of us.
Her pediatrician, at the time, made "comments" to us, letting us know she'd have to let Children's' Services know about the situation. Shocked us both to the point of speechlessness. As it turns out, she'd been having ear infections. As back luck would have it, the knock on the noggin allowed some of the 'bug' to travel from the ear to the sinuses behind the left eye, causing the swelling, fever and nasty looks.
We "fired" her pediatrician and told her she'd better never approach either of us, or our daughter, lest she be sued for everything she owned, or ever would own.
Well, fwiw, I would've stopped and waited until someone called the cops (or I'd do it, obviously, if I had a cell) but there is just about no chance in heck I'd put the kid in the car! Maybe if someone was bearing down on the scene with a knife, or something like that. :)
And I wouldn't have been happy about it in any case. Much as some others have mentioned above, I do not even acknowledge the presence of kids anymore. Who needs the potential hassle?
the truth hurts. it simply a reality of the society. most ambitious ADAs would think nothing of running some dude like SamAdams through the judicial ringer, because he wanted to help a stranded child and took him into his car.
sure, try and prove your innocence when the state moves psychiatrists in to "interview" the 5 year old boy SamAdams thought about helping - and the kids comes out screaming "he touched me".
"Still, in this day and age, can you fuly blame him?"
Ah, that's what makes it worse. I can't.
We might do the same. I am sure he is a decent person and feels awful about it.
the system is designed to get the "low hanging fruit". in the meantime, those SOBs in florida in the Jessica Lunsford case, who knew where the kidnapped child was - walked.
I may have been the first adult male authority figure who took some interest in them - as in getting them to hit the books, since there is no money in track and field. Had to do more with teaching self discipline. I am still in contact with some of those people, after they had gone on to college degrees, careers, etc. These were kids who were otherwise written off, yet most went on to accoplish something. It is sad that in today's culture the actions of a handful of evil people fires up the paranoia of of the public, where anyone working with children, especially on a volunteer basis, is under suspicion. The good people are afraid to get involved because of the risks, and the kids lose.
No, I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I believe that charity is best and most effective when it is from individuals and voluntary, not from the state bureaucrats funded by tax dollars confiscated from individuals. In the latter the bureaucrat is interested primarily by keeping his/her job by keeping people dependent. In the former the people giving are directly involved and directly interested in seeing the long term real benefit to those given. When I saw that, I was on the road to becoming a conservative.
Nothing "convenient" about it. I stated the choice that the guy was actually making according to his own words.
Look, I'm a single guy who bears the brunt of the paranoia of parents who find their children near me whether through their fault or not. It infuriates me to be treated with suspicion. I enjoy the company of children, most of them, in small doses. I am not a criminal.
And the others are right - there is a very real danger of an accusation that it will be difficult to disprove, especially if the child is coached into testifying for the prosecution. The situation isn't the kid's fault.
And so what we're really talking about here is whether a man can face obloquy to save a child who is strange to him. The choice to keep one's reputation and freedom safe and let the thing slid is a perfectly legitimate one, and is the one the guy made. Most often the kid would be OK and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sometimes - this time - not. And when it isn't the guy still has to face an outcome he could have prevented, and this guy does.
It sucks. It's rotten, it's unfair, and I don't really blame the guy for making the wrong decision here, but it was the wrong decision. IMHO.
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.