We may never find out what happened or why. Read the story and shake with horror like I did. Then remind yourself that it is not a crime in this country to kill a viable child who isn’t born yet and throw the remains in the garbage.
The woman who is charged with concealing the bodies of three babies in a London, Ont. basement is believed to be their mother, reports say.
According to a charge sheet filed by police in court, investigators estimate the infants died in the years 2001, 2002 and 2006.
Jennifer Sinn, 32, faces three counts each of concealing the body of a child and offering an indignity to a dead human body. Court documents reportedly identify the woman as the babies’ alleged mother.
The remains were found on Saturday by the woman’s boyfriend, who told neighbours he found bloody blankets in a box in the basement.
He also said his girlfriend had been carrying around the boxes for two years, neighbours said.
by 
How could this go unnoticed for that long? I mean human remains smell terrible, didn’t anyone wonder what was going on? And surely this woman would have been seen pregnant and then the children to be missing. If people can fall through cracks, these cracks were huge.
Brigitte writes:
> remind yourself that it is not a crime in this country to kill a viable child who isn’t born yet and throw the remains in the garbage.
If only that were all; it seems to not even be a crime to kill those that ARE born: I’ve heard (can anyone confirm? I don’t have ready access to resources) that though there have been infanticide convictions, no on has EVER served time in Canada on this charge!
So all those arguments that “it” is “not yet a person” are so much diversion from the reality of murder and how people are able to blind themselves to it.
Martin,
If a mother is convicted of infanticide, and the child is less than a year old, she will not serve time. This is a legal tradition going back to Britain, before this country was ever born.
There is good reason for this. Postpartum psychosis is quite common (the figure I’ve been told is 1-2% of new mothers will develop postpartum psychosis). And unfortunately, psychotic people sometimes kill. So unless there is good evidence that the woman acting of her own free will, psychosis will be presumed, and the mother will not be held criminally responsible.
It’s not so much that the victims of infanticide are not considered persons that their killers aren’t dealt harsh justice, it’s compassion for a woman who is not in control of her actions.
And I think that if we are going to be truly pro-woman, as well as pro-life, we need to have compassion for this woman as well. (I’m having trouble drumming up compassion for her, though. I’m with Julie: three times? How could this have happened THREE times without someone taking notice? Huge cracks. Huge cracks.)
Melissa,
Psychosis and/or the perceived inability to control one’s actions is a factor in many murder scenarios. Think sociopathic serial killers. Think pedophilic child abusers. The public may view these cases with some element of compassion, but would be outraged of if these people were not held criminally responsible. I don’t think compassion necessarily means not holding someone criminally responsible – if someone else’s rights were clearly violated (ie right to life), then justice must be enacted for their sake. Yes, the circumstances and mental state of the murderer should be taken into consideration, but compassion to the point of practically letting them off the hook? That is an unsafe message to send society.
I think the proper compassionate response would to be an increase in information and readily available resources for new mothers to prevent these crimes. For example, when I was in the hospital recovering from a C-section, social workers visited to discuss post partum depression and psychosis and gave me contact information to counseling and other health services. They also contacted me after I was released to check up on me. This is a very good start.
Melissa – Would you agree then that a named psychosis (and I’m sure there’s plenty) could usually be a factor when just about anybody injures – or kills – someone they love? Should the incarceration rates for such charges not then be much lower for men than they are now?
Just askin’.
Besides: no one (every?) has served time for this?? That’s a disparity in outcomes that would never be tolerated if any of the favored groups were getting the sh*tty end of the stick.
Worst of all, innocent *human* lives (year old ones, too, as you say) are thrown, figuratively, under the bus in order to protect a woman’s “right to choose” to end another human’s life.
I’m ashamed for our generation’s willingness to overlook what we know is right, as our forebears did when, for example, slavery and the holocaust took place (and look how those are viewed now!!!)