http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-babysitter-accused-beating-toddler-avoids-charges-article-1.2645855

 

A babysitter accused of bruising a battered baby won’t face any charges — because the infant can’t speak up.

 

Even though Joshua Marbury’s 1-year-old son was covered in bruises and scars from the babysitter’s alleged beating, the accused abuser is protected by a 2012 Oregon Court of Appeals ruling that discourages prosecutors from filing charges since the tyke can’t talk.

 

Marbury was furious as the charges were dropped, after baby Jacob had suffered a severe smack that left a black eye, bruises and a stinging palm print on the child’s face.

 

“I’m so extremely upset, it’s disturbing, on this little innocent baby,” Jacob’s mother, Alicia Quinney told the Daily News. “To think someone could do this to him.”

 

A detective told the upset father the strike could have been fatal, and the babysitter even fessed up to the attack, Marbury said.

 

“After TWO months of waiting we only find out that charges are dropped BECAUSE my one year old cannot tell you verbally he was abused and my son did not show he was in pain OR that this person ‘intentionally’ did this,” Marbury wrote in an angry Facebook post on Friday.

 

The alleged bruising babysitter dodged a criminal case since the 2012 ruling specifies that the victim must be able to describe the pain suffered, Oregon Live reported.

 

The ruling tangles up prosecutors so frequently that animals have more protection from abuse than children.

 

“It doesn’t make sense that someone can go strike a dog and witnesses see it, that’s enough proof, but if you strike a baby...” Marbury told the News. “I don’t understand why this law is in effect.”

 

Jacob's mother has been fighting for a prosecution in this case, as frustrations mount while the attacker remains free.

 

“It's so disturbing that they can let somebody walk around and live their life while my whole family is traumatized from this,” she said.

 

Marbury, who works a demanding job, said he now has trouble trusting babysitters to watch his 1-year-old son.

 

Jacob’s father told the News the babysitter used to be his best friend, and made up several lies and excuses to cover up the beating — first suggesting the child fell, then claiming he accidentally dropped the boy.

 

Emotionally, the boy is still scarred from the attack.

 

After the attack, Jacob has a breakdown every time his mother is away.

 

“He definitely recovered from the bruises, but inside, this is gonna follow him,” Quinney said.

 

She hopes to become the advocate to change the loophole that protects child abusers.

 

After Marbury’s Facebook post went viral with more than 180,000 shares, Quinney said she received an outpour of support from relatives of victims with the same frustrations.

hmmmmm.

Pictures of the baby are in the link to the story.

Pictures of the baby are in the link to the story.

 

Those are heartbreaking. How could you possibly do that to a child? I hate this world sometimes.

This is infuriating.

Not too many things make me want to choke the life out of people. However, this is one of those things.

So the babysitter confessed to hitting the child?

So the babysitter confessed to hitting the child?

 

According to the father, yes.

According to the father, yes.

 

Let's set the asinine law aside for a second.

 

If the babysitter never confessed to police what evidence did they have that the injuries (which I'm not going to check out in the pic) were done at the hands of the babysitter?

Let's set the asinine law aside for a second.

 

If the babysitter never confessed to police what evidence did they have that the injuries (which I'm not going to check out in the pic) were done at the hands of the babysitter?

 

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure.

 

It seems to me we have two stories here.

 

First, the absurdity of a law and , secondly, burden of proof.

It seems to me we have two stories here.

 

First, the absurdity of a law and , secondly, burden of proof.

 

"A detective told the upset father the strike could have been fatal, and the babysitter even fessed up to the attack, Marbury said."

 

This sentence could have been written better in the article. I can't tell if the detective told the father both things or just that the strike could have been fatal.

Let's say this law didn't exist.

 

How would the abuse be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was at the hands of the babysitter? I think the law is just a distraction to the bigger issue - how do you prove anything here?

"A detective told the upset father the strike could have been fatal, and the babysitter even fessed up to the attack, Marbury said."

 

This sentence could have been written better in the article. I can't tell if the detective told the father both things or just that the strike could have been fatal.

 

It has to be that the guy didn't confess.

Wow.