Pages

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Eyewitness Account of the Kermit Gosnell Trial


Note: The following was sent to me by the president of the Bucks County Pro-Life Coalition via e-mail. It was sent to her by a pro-life person who was present in the courtroom at the trial last Tuesday.

This is the most accurate of what I witnessed today:

Re Commonwealth of PA v Kermit Gosnell
Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Court opened with a defense motion for acquittal on some charges against Kermit Gosnell. 

Defense of the RICO charges was made based on being ‘non-repetitive’ , and rebutted by prosecution as repetition shown in the 3 counts of theft by deception, in that Ms. O’Neill (who is being tried with Kermit Gosnell) held herself out repetitively as a doctor, which she was not licensed.  Prosecution reminded the court that even the head nurse at Gosnell’s “Women’s Health Center” was surprised that Ms. O’Neill was not a licensed doctor.  Prosecution alleged that Kermit Gosnell could not continue his business in the volume he did, esp. on Wednesdays, without having had another doctor.  This shows a pattern of repetition, racketeering and repetitive corruption at the Gosnell Women’s Health Center.

In terms of the Abuse of a Corpse charges, the Defense complained that a charge per incidence, i.e. 5 baby feet in 5 jars equaling 5 charges of abuse of a corpse is inappropriate somehow.  Argued that there were only 3 feet in 3 jars, and the gestation period of the fetuses were 22 weeks, 19 weeks and within the first trimester.  Prosecution rebutted saying that there is no definition of a corpse (as the Defense alleged), and is subject to common sense surrounding movement of a voluntary muscle, while in the abortion statute a “born alive” baby must be ‘completely expelled from the mother’s body’, which these children were qualified.

Arguments were heard with regard to the multiple Infanticide charges about movement of the children showing as born alive prior to Gosnell having cut their necks by ‘snipping’ them with scissors. 

Adjudication reduced the number of charges of Infanticide and acquitted the Abuse of a Corpse charges.  All other charges remain which includes Murder and Infanticide, including Baby A, Baby E (“Crying Baby”) among others. 

Defense for Ms. O’Neill then began.   Dr. Stuart – the precipitator for Eileen O’Neill’s PA doctor’s license (seeming achieved in the 2010-2011 timeframe) vouching as to her competence, testified as to Ms. O’Neill’s being a “peaceful, law-abiding and honest”, as well as “compassionate” person.  

David Huff, FBI Special Agent, who worked in Healthcare Fraud Division, Drug Diversion squad for 7 years, during the time of interfacing with the defendant, Eileen O’Neill, testified as to the timing of her having been initially approached for questioning, then later Mirandizing her at the time she came to be in custody…..”if not in custody, no need to Mirandize”.   During the course of his testimony, reference was made to an initial interview where she stated that “Doctor was always there” while she was working, then after further discussion “came off some of the lies” saying that “75% of the time while she was treating, Doctor Gosnell was present.” 

Frank L. Patchiolli, FBI Special Agent, Philadelphia Div., then testified as to the presence of Ms. O’Neill treating a patient at the time of his having arrived at 3801 Lancaster Avenue, Philadelphia, PA in order to execute a search warrant.  Apparently Dr. Gosnell was not present, but was in his car at that time.  

Comment:  My husband and I don’t understand how the two FBI agents were called as a defense witnesses. 

Two former Gosnell workers/patients then provided testimony as to Ms. O’Neill’s competence and compassion, though no specifics could be remembers as to the time and nature of conversations where Ms. O’Neill was to have revealed her not being a licensed physician.

Finally, Defense brought Ms. O’Neill’s brother and mother to the stand as character witnesses.  The effectiveness of these witnesses seemed to Tony & me as somewhat light because of their being family members.

Court adjourned.

No comments:

Post a Comment