Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #136   ^
Old Fri, Oct-21-05, 16:15
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 35,654
 
Plan: DANDR '92
Stats: 236/182/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

I've been keeping an eye on the web news for updates on the Andressohn's trial .. which was supposed to start in May, but kept getting pushed back later and later .

Here's an update, from the Miami Herald .. http://www.kansas.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12920885.htm


Posted on Mon, Oct. 17, 2005


MIAMI-DADE COURTS

Baby's diet focus of trial

The trial is set to begin for Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn, accused of starving their infant daughter to death with a raw foods diet.

BY DAVID OVALLE

dovalle~herald.com

A Miami-Dade prosecutor will argue this week that a Homestead couple subscribed to a bizarre lifestyle that included forced enemas and a dangerous diet of uncooked foods that starved their baby girl to death.

The couple's colorful defense attorney plans to explain that 6-month-old Woyah Andressohn died from complications stemming from a genetic disorder -- not malnutrition.

The couple's young sons will testify against their own parents via closed-circuit television.

Prosecutors say they're too traumatized to face them in person.

The plot lines in Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn's trial, scheduled to begin Monday, will be as complex as they are tragic.

The Homestead couple is accused of child abuse and starving their baby girl to death.

The trial has drawn national attention. Court TV, the cable television network, plans live coverage.

The case first unfolded publicly in May 2003 when Woyah Andressohn -- 6 months old, weighing less than seven pounds, her skin stretched tightly over her protruding ribs -- was pronounced dead at Homestead Hospital.

The next month, Miami-Dade police charged the Andressohns with aggravated manslaughter and four counts of child neglect.

The Florida Department of Children & Families, which had received several complaints about the baby's care, was assailed for failing to prevent the death.

The Andressohns' four remaining children were taken into state custody, and sent to live with a relative.

''The parents violated that sacred trust and have caused the death of one of those children who was dependent on them,'' said Assistant State Attorney Herbert E. Walker III, himself a vegan.

Ellis Rubin, one of the couple's attorneys, says that Woyah's death was caused by a genetic disorder called DiGeorge syndrome.

His key witness is Dr. John Marraccini, the former Palm Beach County chief medical examiner.

He will argue that DiGeorge weakened Woyah's immune system, leaving her to die of pneumonia and esophageal reflux, caused when stomach acids back up into the esophagus.

''He's going to win this case for us,'' Rubin said.

Rubin says DiGeorge is to blame for Woyah's lack of a thymus gland.

The thymus is small organ in the chest that produces virus-fighting T-cells.

But prosecutors say she did have a thymus, but it had shrunken significantly because of malnutrition.

They point to a medical report issued in February that found T cells in the girl's spleen.

''Our evidence will show unequivocally that a person born without a thymus cannot produce T-cells,'' Walker said.

Rubin maintains that the presence of T-cells doesn't rule out DiGeorge.

Plenty of medical speak -- but the trial also will offer a glimpse into the often-controversial raw foods lifestyle.

Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn are followers of a movement that believes humans aren't meant to eat animal products.

They also believe that cooking diminishes the effectiveness of essential vitamins, minerals and enzymes.

But prosecutors will paint the family's diet of organic fruits, vegetables and nuts as dangerous.

Before she died, Woyah was fed a mix of wheat grass, coconut water and almond milk.

They say the four other children were malnourished, and Woyah was given ''detoxifying'' wheat-grass enemas.

In difficult-to-watch video interviews shown in court recently, two of the sons, then ages 4 and 6, described enemas given to their sister, stealing food and getting whipped with a belt for eating cooked foods -- even as Joseph Andressohn smoked and occasionally indulged in eating meat.

The jury won't be allowed to see the video but it will hear from the woman who interviewed the children.

To counter, the Andressohns' attorneys plan to offer a bevy of experts aimed at explaining the raw food diet.

''We are going to show that the diet was adequate and nutritional,'' Rubin said.


.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #137   ^
Old Fri, Oct-21-05, 16:22
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,277
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

That is a trial that I would hate to be on the jury for.
Reply With Quote
  #138   ^
Old Fri, Oct-21-05, 17:01
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 35,654
 
Plan: DANDR '92
Stats: 236/182/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Boys Testify In Parents' Trial Over Baby Sister's Death

Prosecution Claims Mother Admitted Diet Hurt Baby

POSTED: 6:59 pm EDT October 19, 2005
UPDATED: 3:01 am EDT October 20, 2005

MIAMI -- The two oldest children of a couple accused of starving their baby to death with a diet of only raw food testified against their parents Wednesday.

Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn are charged with aggravated manslaughter after their 5-month-old daughter, Woyah, died in May 2003.

Prosecutors contend that the child starved to death as a result of the raw food diet imposed by her parents. The defense claims that the baby died as the result of congenital medical problems.

The two boys, now 9 and 7 years old, testified via closed-circuit television from a remote location.

"All I know is they killed my little baby sister by accident," the 9-year-old said.

The 9-year-old said he barely remembers Woyah, NBC 6's Nick Bogert reported.

"They gave us raw food but they didn't know our little sister would die from that," the 9-year-old said.

Lamoy Andressohn wept in the courtroom when her oldest son said he could not remember her name now.

The 7-year-old boy, who testified while holding a golf club the judge had in his chamber, agreed with his older brother that the raw food diet often left him hungry but afraid to complain to his parents.

"Because I thought I'd get in trouble," the 7-year-old said.

In the 28 months since the boys and their two other siblings were removed from their parents' care, they have lived with their father's sister.

"They look good, and it would be wonderful to hold them," Joseph Andressohn said.

Defense lawyers claimed the aunt has turned the four children against their parents.

"It came out in further cross-examination that he got those thoughts from his new mother, Mary," said defense lawyer Ellis Rubin.

But, when the 9-year-old said his mommy told him that his sister had died because of diet, and lawyers asked him which mommy he meant, he replied, "my real, my first one."

Prosecutor Herbert Walker claimed this meant that Lamoy Andressohn had admitted that the ideas on nutrition had been a fatal mistake.

"The information about baby Woyah dying from eating the raw food came from the defendant herself," Walker said.

Defense lawyers claimed the aunt scared the kids out of wanting to see their parents.

"My aunt told me that if I went there I'd go to jail," one of the children said in his testimony.

Although the boys couldn't see them, the Andressohns waved when each boy left the remote camera site.

Rubin had earlier tried to deliver an "I love you," message from the Andressohns to their sons, but the prosecution raised an objection, which the judge sustained.

Rubin added, "I'm sorry. I can't tell you that," Bogert reported.

Lamoy Andressohn did not want to comment outside the courtroom.


http://www.nbc6.net/news/5128611/detail.html
Reply With Quote
  #139   ^
Old Fri, Oct-21-05, 20:15
bugsey's Avatar
bugsey bugsey is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 185
 
Plan: atkins (my own kind)
Stats: 180/172/115 Female 5'1
BF:
Progress: 12%
Default

lotsa crazies in de world......dang.. poor baby....
Reply With Quote
  #140   ^
Old Fri, Oct-21-05, 20:50
eve25's Avatar
eve25 eve25 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 491
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 315/274/175 Female 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 29%
Default

i just read this WHOLE thread from the beginning....WHEW.
i think the big issue with these people is that, not only were they vegan, but they ate only RAW food. so obviously that baby had no milk and no formula (not even vegan or soy as it would have to be heated/preserved in a can). how is that NOT child abuse??

all the talk about the LAW and semantics issues like "common sense" and what's "reasonable" is so irrelevant. how many chances did this lady have:
breastfeeding?___couldnt
formula?____wouldnt
weight gain?___not there
NO EXCUSE for that. if she was reading up on rawfoods and veganism, couldnt she have found one book about child development???

another similar situation (but alot luckier)
http://www.vegfamily.com/blog/?p=6
(you gotta love how the vegan owner of the site doesnt comment/defend anymore after someone posts the press release)
Reply With Quote
  #141   ^
Old Fri, Oct-21-05, 21:07
bugsey's Avatar
bugsey bugsey is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 185
 
Plan: atkins (my own kind)
Stats: 180/172/115 Female 5'1
BF:
Progress: 12%
Default

Hey EYE25--- read that one....... sheeeeeeeeeeeeet...... for no better thing to say but heck, doesn't anyone know that a baby needs to be fed by the mother (she's usually got a dripping breast btw when she gives birth).... this baby was luckier but we do not know what damaged it has brought to his mind and health YET. I can never see this as "anything" more than a dangerous "cult" that can kill.. if merely, by "forgetting" (e.g. forgot babies have to be fed.. breatfed. whatever). I believe in a sane diet --- but not anything so extreme that it becomes some kind of a cult!
Reply With Quote
  #142   ^
Old Sat, Oct-22-05, 01:45
Milhafre's Avatar
Milhafre Milhafre is offline
Cast Iron Chef
Posts: 8,846
 
Plan: lc, higher protein
Stats: 170/132/127 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 88%
Location: nyc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duparc
<snip>You say that the law makes reference to a 'reasonable' person but how is 'reasonable' defined? We differ, but, which one of us is the 'reasonable' one? If you are likely to suggest that you are, then I will take issue with you, but, all that serves to do, is to question the term 'reasonable'.

<snip>

Clearly, if this case was referred to the children's welfare department and was investigated and allegations of neglect dismissed then how can those parents be accused of neglect when the professionals dismissed it? Inevitably this will weaken the case for the prosecution.

<snip> History does not necessarily create a precedence. Its relevance to this case may be doubtful.

<snip>

1. The "reasonable person standard" is one that is well established in common law systems, including most of the US, most of Canada, and England ("Reasonable Person Standard" search results on Google). While some have criticised the standard on various grounds, no realistic standard has been proposed to take its place. From Wikipedia: The reasonable person is not the average person: this is not a democratic measure. To predict the appropriate sense of responsibility and other standards of the reasonable man, ‘what is reasonable’ has to be appropriate to the issue. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning medicine, for example. But the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary under certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks is always reasonable. The "reasonable person standard" is based on "common sense", and common law courts do not generally have a problem with defining it in this manner. The reasonable person standard is often used in criminal child abuse cases, including in the Florida criminal code - see links below (they call it "prudent person" - it's the same thing).

2. What you refer to as "children's welfare department[s]" have a checkered recent history in the US. In a number of prominent cases in the past ten years or so (at least in the Northeastern US, where I live), the negligence of the child welfare workers in improperly investigating and dismissing allegations of negligence has led to the convictions of parents, the dismissal of workers, and the overhaul of such systems, unfortunately not always for the better. Time and time again, it has been shown that for various reasons (of which overwork, lack of funds or education and improper hiring are a few), the actions and determinations of the child welfare agencies have been woefully inadequate and improper.

3. As for "History does not necessarily create a precedence" (I assume you mean precedent) - historically, the common law system is based entirely on history (unlike the civil law system or a mixed system, which includes Scotland), although in modern times common law has been influenced by civil law in the promulgation of various codes, including criminal codes. Despite such codes, though, common law systems retain a strong sense of history. In the US, the primary effects of history in case law are binding precedent and stare decisis. Legally speaking, a case decision always creates precedent in common law systems (unless the judge specifically states in the decision that it does not); even judges issuing decisions that do not appear to follow history must explain his or her reasons behind the differences in the decision in historical terms (what is called "distinguishing" a case). It's true that jurisdictional boundaries in the US are myriad and complex, and so what may have happened in, say, New Jersey, will have little or no effect on a case in Florida. However, as cases pile up over the years, it becomes more and more likely that attorneys can convince a judge to consider cases that would normally be outside of precedental boundaries.

In the past twenty years or so in the US, there have been a number of high profile cases that bear a similarity to this one. Child welfare laws, adequacy of child welfare agencies, and parental rights involving care requirements and diet or religious freedoms are deeply contested areas of law in the US right now, and slowly, there have been changes. I am not familiar with Florida child welfare laws (beyond a dim awareness of a few cases), but relevant past cases there will have some effect on this one, and this case will have some effect on future cases.

Finally, I do not think from the facts available thus far in the case that it can be succesfully argued that the parents provided adequate care - whether or not the child had a birth defect, and regardless of the beliefs of the mother. Intent is not a requirement of one of the charges against the parents, aggravated manslaughter of a child, which is defined in Florida as causing the death "by culpable negligence." Culpable negligence is defined by Florida courts as "exhibiting reckless indifference or gross careless disregard". (Neglect of a child is defined here in Florida Statutes.) Feeding a vegan diet to an infant is not, in and of itself, culpably negligent (as much as many of us may disagree with it). This is a separate issue from the effect of the diet on the child.
Reply With Quote
  #143   ^
Old Sat, Oct-22-05, 04:56
Duparc's Avatar
Duparc Duparc is offline
New Member
Posts: 586
 
Plan: self-designed
Stats: 216/189/190 Male tad under 6'
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Kirriemuir, Scotland
Default

I am not in disagreement with the thrust of your post Milhafre and especially on the point of the 'reasonable person' not being the 'average person'. I recognise too the effect of case-law but precedents apply only where they are appropriate. My apology for using the wrong grammatical term; it should have been the noun and not the adjective. Hopefully, I won't be indicted on this issue!
Reply With Quote
  #144   ^
Old Fri, Dec-23-05, 11:02
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 35,654
 
Plan: DANDR '92
Stats: 236/182/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Update ... Trial outcome and sentencing ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vegan couple convicted of neglecting their children spared from prison

By Emanuella Grinberg
Court TV
Updated Dec. 22, 2005, 2:26 p.m. ET

A Miami judge made a surprising departure from sentencing guidelines Thursday when he handed down 15 years of probation to a couple convicted of neglecting their children by enforcing a strict vegan diet.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Stanford Blake's decision to spare Lamoy and Joseph Andressohn a prison sentence paved the way for a reunion between the couple and their four children, whom they haven't seen since they were arrested in 2003 for the death of their 6-month-old daughter.

A jury convicted the Andressohns in November of felony child neglect for enforcing a diet of raw fruits and vegetables and wheat grass. But the panel acquitted the couple of manslaughter in the death of their baby, Woyah, who weighed less than 7 pounds when she died from what a medical examiner termed accidental malnourishment.

"I fear for the safety of the kids," Assistant State Attorney Herbert Walker III told Courttv.com. "I also worry about the message this sends: If you do something that harms or kills your kids, you can just say you didn't mean to do it and get away with it."

The Andressohns claimed they felt they were doing the best for the children, who were born in the home, never saw a doctor and received wheat grass enemas in place of traditional medical attention.

In granting the defense's request for a downward departure, Blake rejected Walker's argument that the crimes were not isolated incidents and that couple was unremorseful.

Walker said he will appeal the sentence because it went below the mandated guidelines.

Blake attached a number of conditions to the probation, including regular pediatrician visits for the children, parental counseling for the Andressohns and psychological counseling for the whole family.

"The probation conditions will micromanage the kids for the next 15 years, but basically, the parents have the key now," Blake told Courttv.com. "If they realize how serious this is, they'll take control of the situation. If not, they can tell their cellmates about it."

The couple must also reject their extreme "living foods" lifestyle and keep their children on a diet approved by a nutritionist, immunize them regularly and send them to public schools.

During the trial, two children testified they were taught that cooked foods were "evil."

They also testified that they had had begun eating cooked food since they were removed from their parents' care and that tacos were their favorite meal.

The Andressohns temporarily lost custody of their children after Woyah's death, pending the outcome of the trial, and have not seen or spoke to them since August 2003.

The family court will decide when the children are returned to their parents, but it likely will be at least a year, so that the Andressohns can undergo parental counseling.

Last month, a family court judge refused to terminate their parental rights, stating that he felt an eventual reunion was in the best interests of the children, who are now living with Joseph Andressohn's half-sister, Mary Andressohn.

Article URL:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/andre...encing_ctv.html


.
Reply With Quote
  #145   ^
Old Fri, Dec-23-05, 16:16
Duparc's Avatar
Duparc Duparc is offline
New Member
Posts: 586
 
Plan: self-designed
Stats: 216/189/190 Male tad under 6'
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Kirriemuir, Scotland
Default

Thanks for the update Doreen. The outcome is what could be expected. An interesting result but hardly what could be described as justice; more like politics in action.
Reply With Quote
  #146   ^
Old Fri, Dec-23-05, 17:50
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,277
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

I feel the results were just. The parents did not intentionally try to harm their children. Unfortunately, the best of intentions can cause harm.
Reply With Quote
  #147   ^
Old Sat, Dec-24-05, 18:15
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
I feel the results were just. The parents did not intentionally try to harm their children. Unfortunately, the best of intentions can cause harm.



I agree. What purpose would there be in putting these people in prison. They were misguided, but then so is a lot of people. What is happening now is what should have happened before the poor child died, which is strict supervision under pain of having the children removed.

It's sad that a child need to die for the authorities to do their job properly.
Reply With Quote
  #148   ^
Old Wed, Jan-11-06, 16:54
eve25's Avatar
eve25 eve25 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 491
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 315/274/175 Female 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 29%
Default

ironic how they would be punished if the child SURVIVED, but the child dies and they get off.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:37.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.