US baby 'murdered in microwave'

sarabee · 29th November 2006, 3:00am

What the FUCK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News

A US woman has been arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn baby by burning her in a microwave oven.

China Arnold's daughter had high-heat internal burns, but no outside marks, Ken Betz from the county coroner's office in Montgomery, Ohio, said.

"We have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief that a microwave oven was used," Mr Betz said of baby Paris Talley's death.

The mother denies the charge, which comes over a year after the girl died.

Paris Talley, who was one-month-old, was already dead when Ms Arnold took her to hospital in August 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6193964.stm

It actually makes me feel sick.

Semprini · 29th November 2006, 6:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarabee

It actually makes me feel sick.

I don't suppose the baby felt too good about it either.

Zooropa · 29th November 2006, 7:08am

Watt the hell?

**PapaZeb** · 29th November 2006, 7:14am

This is obviously the punch-line to
"what's red, bubbly, and scratches at the window before exploding"

TheCastrator · 29th November 2006, 7:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarabee

What the FUCK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6193964.stm

It actually makes me feel sick.

Because, yes, microwaves cook things from the inside-out. Only they don't. If this wasn't on the BBC News website, I'd be sure Snopes'd have a page for it.

**djtoast** · 29th November 2006, 7:29am

In fairness it doesn't actually say that, and conventional ovens do cook things from the outside in, which seems not to be the case here, so it seems like a fair conclusion.

TheCastrator · 29th November 2006, 7:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtoast

In fairness it doesn't actually say that, and conventional ovens do cook things from the outside in, which seems not to be the case here, so it seems like a fair conclusion.

Only they did:
"high-heat internal burns, but no outside marks"

Therefore, it must have been put in the microwave!
Only not, because microwaves do not work that way!

**PapaZeb** · 29th November 2006, 7:39am

Now now Andrew, you're not taking into account that the article clearly stresses that this was an AMERICAN crime. All rules of Science! and physics do not apply in the colonies.

endless psych · 29th November 2006, 7:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCastrator

Only they did:
"high-heat internal burns, but no outside marks"

Therefore, it must have been put in the microwave!
Only not, because microwaves do not work that way!

Its probably the most likley thing to have been in their house that could have caused the injuries.

The only other thing that occurs is some sort of extreme reaction at a cellular level - but I am not even sure if its theoretically possible such a reaction is possible

**PapaZeb** · 29th November 2006, 7:41am

Quote:

The only other thing that occurs is some sort of extreme reaction at a cellular level

Was the baby's name Jean? If so, it'll be okay. She'll be alive again when the writers get stuck for an idea.

endless psych · 29th November 2006, 7:46am

I'm wondering whats the difference between a chemical burn and a high heat burn and how easy would it by for a coroner to mistake the two?

**PapaZeb** · 29th November 2006, 7:54am

With a chemical burn you'd have splash damage + inhalation damage as you're much much more likely to die from inhaling chemicals than from your epidermis being splashed by bleach and you keeling over dead.

High heat burns are nasty. Fat boils away to nothing under skin, loosening and heating to a taut crisp the skin for inches around the localized area. The smell is horrendous (I'm getting this second hand from a friend that works in a morgue and has done a few burn victims) and doesn't go away no matter how much you wish it.

**djtoast** · 29th November 2006, 8:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCastrator

Only they did:
"high-heat internal burns, but no outside marks"

Therefore, it must have been put in the microwave!
Only not, because microwaves do not work that way!

Conventional ovens have either an electrical element or a gas flame emitting heat which is transmitted to whatever is being cooked mostly by convection (and partly by radiation) but in both cases the heat arrives at the outside first, and is transmitted from there inwards mostly by conduction, so it would be impossible to burn something inside without burning it more outside.

(Which wasn't the case here.)

By contrast microwaves penetrate the surface of things they cook and can cause at least as much molecular vibrational kinetic energy inside something as at the surface of it. In a pie for example the more densely arranged water molecules inside will have more energy imparted to them than the more loosely arranged sustance in the crust and having a higher specific heat capacity will retain that thermal energy longer thus continuing to burn even after the microwave is switched off (and of course in both cases the outside will cool quicker through convection and radiation).

So no, they're not saying that the baby was cooked "from the inside, out" ; they're saying it was cooked inside, it wasn't more cooked (burnt) outside than in, so the heat wasn't applied by convection, by topical / conductive means, by electromagnetic radiation in a spectrum (such a visible light) incapable of penetrating meat...

So it seems pretty logical to conclude that a common domestic appliance, which would produce exactly that effect, was involved.

System_Star · 29th November 2006, 8:32am

Largest of Gregs · 29th November 2006, 8:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zooropa

Watt the hell?

Christ, here we go....