From The AP: DAYTON, Ohio — A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by putting the baby in a microwave oven.
China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital.
We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death," said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner’s office.
He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.
Arnold was arrested soon after the baby’s death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because "there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings.
Hat Tip: Biggin!


How about we throw her A@@ in a microwave to see the tests first hand
Posted by: J | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 04:14 PM
Freezer Baby and now Microwave Baby!? What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are people thinking!?
Posted by: The G | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Freezer Baby and now Microwave Baby!? What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are people thinking!?
Posted by: The G | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 04:32 PM
how about we cook her alive that is just wrong man... she has more than mental issues!!
Posted by: kesha | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Make sure you set the power setting on 3 or so, so it cooks her nice and slow!
Posted by: Stinky B. | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Either she had one big ol' microwave or one very tiny kid. Which is it?
Posted by: kmb | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 05:12 PM
She is a killer!
Posted by: Biggin | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 10:09 AM
she will say the devil made her do it like that lady in texas
Posted by: J | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 10:15 AM
We have "reason to believe", and we have "some" forensic evidence that is consistent with our "belief"..
Not defending a lunatic if she did it, but does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement?
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM
She's a nut, and she needs to be executed.
Posted by: blondie2hot7 | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 12:30 PM
I remember seeing a illness that a child got once. It resembled shaken baby syndrome I believe. Anywho, the mother was charged with killing the baby, she got a lawyer who found other cases of this disease in other countries amoung babies. Because the doctor's had never incountered this disease they automatically assumed the mother had killed her child. Make a long story short, the mother was found innocent because she was. I'd think long and hard about this one.
If it comes to light that the mother did kill this baby by microwave, then I'm all for her being convicted.
But, I'm thinking and looking at my microwave, its too small for me to put a baby in there so most likely I'd have to stuff the baby in there, meaning broken neck, outside bruises on the body something to show this baby was bumping around on turn plate. And yes you can get burns on the outside of your body from microwave heat, touch the sides of the microwave when you first open it. Mines gets hot.
I saw an article where a cat was put in a microwave and killed in the article it said that there was extensive damage done to the cat. I'll just guess and say from outward appearances the cat looked cooked. Because, I'm sure they did not do an autopsy on the cat.
Just my opinion though
Posted by: All n A Days Work | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 12:49 PM
"Not defending a lunatic if she did it, but does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement?"
bh,
I find nothing wrong with their statement. There are different levels in regard to burden of proof (reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt). For anyone to be arrested for a crime, all that is needed is probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime, meaning the police have evidence leading them to believe this woman committed this murder. For her to be convicted, it will be up to the police and DA to put on their case to a jury of her peers (if there are any) to prove that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this women committed this heinous crime.
Posted by: Concerned4U | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM
You always have to be careful in making an assertion like this, but I seriously doubt any prosecuter or scientist would jeoperdize his reputation by saying it if there wasnt about a 99% chance of it being true.
Posted by: jpbikerfreak | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Sounds like we need to do some microwave testing on mice to see what the affects would be. Also, obviously if she did it and wasn't ruled mental, she must be on that sherm. People that are on that stuff, get paranoid, do crazy things, and have no knowledge of what they did previously. See Stanley Tookie Williams on the internet. He was on that sherm, killed a bunch of folks, and then had no recollection and denied it even occurred. He eventually got himself together and became a strong leader with the youth and showed youngsters that they had the power to change their minds and hearts, to make a better life for themselves and their families. www.tookie.com/
Posted by: | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Sounds like we need to do some microwave testing on mice to see what the affects would be. Also, obviously if she did it and wasn't ruled mental, she must be on that sherm. People that are on that stuff, get paranoid, do crazy things, and have no knowledge of what they did previously. See Stanley Tookie Williams on the internet. He was on that sherm, killed a bunch of folks, and then had no recollection and denied it even occurred. He eventually got himself together and became a strong leader with the youth and showed youngsters that they had the power to change their minds and hearts, to make a better life for themselves and their families. www.tookie.com/
Posted by: Jade | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:03 PM
"Sounds like we need to do some microwave testing on mice".. or cats.. Vib? Any you'd like to volunteer?
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Thanks concerned.. I'm not suggesting that this not be pursued and that she did nothing wrong. I'm sure the findings are there. I just thought the statement itself is weak and suggests to me that they aren't even convinced yet that a crime has occured. Some jurers may find that in itself as reasonable doubt.
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:29 PM
This woman has 2 other kids, why would she just put this one in the microwave. I know there are crazy people in this world, but it just doesn't make much sense. Also, if they are so sure that this baby was microwaved, did anybody bother to check the microwave for forensic evidence like hair, skin, or fingerprints that match the baby?
Posted by: What's wrong with the world | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:30 PM
hmmm good point Whats... could one of the other kids have done it?..
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:32 PM
I AGREE WITH BLONDIE2HOT,
Posted by: smoothk | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:51 PM
I do too smoothy.. once they PROVE she did it. I just don't want to see us start executing people over what the police believe. Even if they do have "some" evidence that is "consistent" with those "beliefs".
That's setting the bar on the burden of proof pretty low.
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 02:07 PM
Not all microwaves have rotating plates. Mine doesnt, and I have one of those older much larger microwaves that they dont make anymore. (Montgomery Wards)
Posted by: John Boy | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 02:32 PM
Wouldn't the eyeballs pop out in a few seconds?
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 02:35 PM
i just think this is sick.
i remember growing up, i had this weird drunk neighbor and his cats had kittens at one time. he had put a kitten in the microwave...the eyes didn't pop out though..but it did kill it from the inside out.
sick/sad.
Posted by: htgirl | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 02:55 PM
what is Sherm?
Posted by: Kerri | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 02:57 PM
okay, nevermind, I looked it up on urban dictionary.com.
So, yeah, she might have been on Sherm. I hope she isn't guilty, because that is very very sad. If so, they ought to fry her in the same way, but perhaps put some Sherm in with her just for old times sakes.
Posted by: | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Hi ya ht! good to see you. Seriously the eyeballs didn't pop out?
Yeah I agree this is sick.. if she did do it I just hope they can pin her with it. And if they decide to fry her.. they should use a microwave instead of an electric chair..
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 03:19 PM
ok I'm stupid and too lazy.. I mean busy to look it up.. so Kerri.. what the heck is a sherm?
Posted by: bh | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 03:21 PM
yeah, what is a sherm??
hey bh...if you're still around!
Posted by: htgirl | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 04:09 PM
Urban dictionary says Sherm is "Tobacco mixed with weed, dipped in PCP"
Posted by: Kerri | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 04:31 PM
wow, yeah, she was way gone....
that is just sick if she did that to her baby though.
Posted by: htgirl | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 04:49 PM
Sick.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 05:11 PM
A one month old baby isn't too big to fit in a microwave. My microwave is easily big enough - and the turn-plate on mine can be turned on and off. Man, that's a phase I never thought I'd be typing.
Posted by: Kelly | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 07:24 PM