Angelica Swartout told family her newborn baby was stillborn

**Obsolete** · February 17th, 2012, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by malq

I have tried 3 times to show you just my nipples for a warmup. @dakota keeps blocking my post.
this is my last try

Those look just like my Aunt Beckys

**malq** · February 17th, 2012, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

Those look just like my Aunt Beckys

Yeah, I know

**VAS1326** · February 17th, 2012, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by penelopejo

If I were on that jury, I wouldn't find her guilty because there's not enough evidence to tell me otherwise. Maybe guilty of lying to the police, but not of murdering a child that we don't even know exists.

I find it very odd that there was no sign of either tearing or stretching, even though they are saying she gave birth....

I don't find it odd she didn't tear....I'm guessing she would have had a small baby since she had a drug problem or possibly this baby was concieved after the March pregnancy test and she did actually go into early labor and have a still born. My friend was 15 when she gave birth to a premie and she did not rip or tear. My SIL gave birth to my nephew (who is her only child) who was born full term and weighing around 8lbs without tearing (the OB she had I used with my last 2 pregnancies and he has a method that helps prevent tearing which obviously works) Her friend also used same OB for her first delivery and she too did not tear. It's really not uncommon.

Now that I said that I wonder if that is what happened. I wonder if in Jan she got the positive pregnancy test (which would be super early since she would have gotten pregnant in January to be due in October (I have an October baby and didn't miss a cycle until February) and then miscarried or was not actually pregnant like she told people. Then sometime after March got knocked up for real. I had a friend who did that to trap a man. She claimed to be pregnant and got him to marry her like a month later. Then a few months after that she tells me she miscarried the first child and didn't know it (no bleeding or anything) and got pregnant again when she should have been 3 months pregnant. I don't for a minute believe she was pregnant the first time cause other things she said didn't make sense. She was really pregnant the second time. I don't talk to that girl anymore. She was always so full of shit. Anyways back on point..maybe the mom in this story did the same thing. Maybe that is why the change in behavior. Maybe after she did get knocked up for real she was "happy" about it and more willing to let others touch her belly. Maybe that's why no ultrasound pictures were shown to friends (since they have the gestation date on them) Who knows with this woman.

I think this woman wove a web of so many stories she doesn't even know what is truth.

**VAS1326** · February 17th, 2012, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by MotherManderkin

A few key points I feel I must make... Firstly, yes, there are several ways to tell if a woman has delivered a baby in her lifetime. They cannot be faked. Two I can think of off of the top of my head are the placement of the pelvic bones, and the size of her uterus. No matter when she delivered, be it 2 weeks ago or 20 years ago, those will be different than someone who has never had a baby. The pelvic bones shift during pregnancy and never go back into place. The uterus shrinks after delivery but never goes back to the size it once was.
As far as having a negative pregnancy test 3 months into a pregnancy... *raises hand* I did that too. I had a negative BLOOD pregnancy test 3 months into a pregnancy. It can happen.
Unfortunately, I do not think this child's body will ever be found. Due to that fact, I do not think that she will be convicted. I think we have another Casey Anthony over here who can lay down and bring a child into the world, take it away just as easily without flinching, and then get off on reasonable doubt. Sad.

The problem with both those methods is it is almost nearly impossible to know or prove either. First in order to show somebody's pelvic bones have moved you would have to know how exactly they were positioned pre-labor. Not many people have full body x-rays laying around. Also not every person who has a baby has hips that appear to have widened. It would take before and after to compare. You think it would be easy to tell this way but it's too hard to prove one way or another.

As far as everything I've ever read (I have had 4 pregnancies over the course of 13 years) the uterus does shrink back to pre-pregnancy size. But let's say you are correct and it really doesn't go back to how it was how does one measure a uterus acurrately without going in and measuring. When they measure your uterus when pregnant they measure your belly to get an approximate size (from measuring what they call the fundus) Mine verried every week of my 3rd pregnancy...one week measuring a week ahead and then the next week it measured a week behind...literally every week. Why because it is not exact. I guess they can also measure with ultrasound but if no previous record of size exist how do you know if it changed? Just like some uterus's are tilted others are smaller then average and some are larger then average. There is no previous timeline to compare too so it just wouldn't work.

I don't know if the woman is guilty or not. It's hard when two experts disagree. Who knows who to believe. I also don't know which part of her story is lies and which are not. Why would a co-worker lie about finding blood all over? Why tell police you killed your baby when oops I lied would have worked much better? She didn't know she was setting herself up for a murder charge if she confessed to killing the baby? I think that is bs. I really don't think anyone will ever know the absolute truth in this case.

**malq** · February 17th, 2012, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

I am pretty sure there is some way to tell if a woman's ever given birth BUT can the state force you into doing the testing? I dunno. Wouldn't that be a violation of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination? It's the state's job to prove a crime was committed but you don't have to help them do it.

This may be true. You do not not have to give a DNA sample or a breath/blood test for a DUI.
I know there are court ordered urinalysis's for just about anything, and cavity searches for prisoners. A pelvic examination is no more invasive than boarding a plane. i think it can be done with an xray. They do that all the time for people suspected of smuggling. The question is,.. is it a violation of self incrimination? I think it can be court ordered in the discovery of as crime. It could certainly be argued that it is a violation by any attorney who can spell kat.

**malq** · February 17th, 2012, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by VAS1326

The problem with both those methods is it is almost nearly impossible to know or prove either. First in order to show somebody's pelvic bones have moved you would have to know how exactly they were positioned pre-labor. Not many people have full body x-rays laying around. Also not every person who has a baby has hips that appear to have widened. It would take before and after to compare. You think it would be easy to tell this way but it's too hard to prove one way or another.

As far as everything I've ever read (I have had 4 pregnancies over the course of 13 years) the uterus does shrink back to pre-pregnancy size. But let's say you are correct and it really doesn't go back to how it was how does one measure a uterus acurrately without going in and measuring. When they measure your uterus when pregnant they measure your belly to get an approximate size (from measuring what they call the fundus) Mine verried every week of my 3rd pregnancy...one week measuring a week ahead and then the next week it measured a week behind...literally every week. Why because it is not exact. I guess they can also measure with ultrasound but if no previous record of size exist how do you know if it changed? Just like some uterus's are tilted others are smaller then average and some are larger then average. There is no previous timeline to compare too so it just wouldn't work.

I don't know if the woman is guilty or not. It's hard when two experts disagree. Who knows who to believe. I also don't know which part of her story is lies and which are not. Why would a co-worker lie about finding blood all over? Why tell police you killed your baby when oops I lied would have worked much better? She didn't know she was setting herself up for a murder charge if she confessed to killing the baby? I think that is bs. I really don't think anyone will ever know the absolute truth in this case.

Yeah you got me curious so I did some digging. It appears there are ways of proving if a woman has given birth in a skeleton.
But searching for proof in a live woman I ended up on forums with postnatal women worried about their saggy labia and paranoia over gaping vaginas. one claimed her vagina never shrunk back down. picture that...I gave up.

Pelvis

Look for the pubic symphysis, which is the joint located in the pelvis. The older the person at death, the more pitted and craggy these bones will be. Forensic anthropologists will compare this against a database of standard markers to learn the age of the skeleton. Check if there are any soft marks on the cartilage which are left by childbirth as the bones soften to allow easier birth.

To identify gender, assess the pelvis shape; men have a narrow, deep pelvis and women a wider, shallower pelvis, better-suited to carrying a baby. For a quick identification in the field, a forensic anthropologist will find the notch in the fan-shaped bone of the pelvis and stick their thumb into it. If there's room to wiggle the thumb, then it's a female; if it's a tight fit, it's the skeleton of a man

lost the fucking link

The pelvis area is another good way of differentiating between the sexes. A female will have a larger sub-pubic angle to that of a man and this is obviously indicative of child bearing requirements in the female that are not required in the male of the species. This difference is noticeable across all species in nature where birth is from the womb. The male's sub-pubic area is less than ninety degrees whilst the female's is more.

The area around the pelvic inlet (in the middle of the pelvic bone) is larger in females than in men again with relevance to child bearing. The skeleton of a female who has given birth will be identifiable by the fact that this space will have widened upon the birth of a child and although it will contract it will not contract fully back to its original size.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/determining-sex.html

Where is the evidence? From my (albeit limited) knowledge of osteology and palaeopathology it transpires that there are ways of ascertaining whether a female skeleton is that of a woman who has given birth (or tried to give birth) to a child, in that every birth results in scarring of the pubic bones, particularly of the pelvis. If one were to examine the pelvises of the skeletons of those females who died in the 20 to 35 age range one might be able to figure out which of these women had given birth or tried to. These individuals might likely (but still not definitely) be the ones who could have died in childbirth. Those individuals with no evidence of scarring to the pelvis are then the ones that definitely died from causes other than childbirth. I raise these questions because in my simple mind, when it comes to statistics, I cannot fathom how most of us alive today would actually have got here if our putative ancestral mothers had all died in childbirth. To the argument that we are the descendants of those (few) women who survived childbirth I would counter that such a limited line of descent would contradict the genetic diversity we see today.

http://irinametzler.org/2011/10/13/s...-the-cupboard/

**VAS1326** · February 18th, 2012, 03:21 PM

Thanks Malq I stand corrected. My question is it possible to find these markers on a living person? I looked for the answer too but could not find it.

**malq** · February 18th, 2012, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by VAS1326

Thanks Malq I stand corrected. My question is it possible to find these markers on a living person? I looked for the answer too but could not find it.

Sorry, wasn't trying to correct you. :D I had a doctor tell me yesterday you could tell by the bones of the pelvis. I would have to ask for more details though. What you said makes complete sense and sounds subjective to prove on a live person.
Ohhh i found this, tell me if it makes sense. I am no gyno, I came up through the ranks as a journeyman with enough experience I got my union card.

According to Dr. Adelaide Nardone, medical advisor to the Vagisil Women's Health Center and clinical instructor at the Brown University School of Medicine, "If a woman has never had a baby, her cervical opening is very small, in some cases as small as a pinhead, but large enough to allow for menstrual blood to flow out and to allow for the insertion of a cytobrush [used when obtaining Pap smears]," says Dr. Nardone. "If a woman has had a vaginal delivery, the external opening of the cervix can be described as a small 'slit' or 'fish mouth,' but the internal 'os' [the junction between the cervix and the uterus] should be closed."

http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/he...article/cervix

**Nell** · February 18th, 2012, 04:01 PM

Over the next several weeks, the uterus slowly returns to its nonpregnant state, although the overall uterine size remains larger than prior to gestation.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260187-overview

You are never the same after giving birth. I can't believe that they are having so much trouble figuring this out.

Also, I would never go to a DR. that claimed no one ever tore. Not because i don't believe him, but if you don't tear they don't stitch you, and you end up looser than you would be. Which is why after my 3rd I got a honeymoon stitch.

TMI bitches.

**malq** · February 19th, 2012, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Nell

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260187-overview

You are never the same after giving birth. I can't believe that they are having so much trouble figuring this out.

Also, I would never go to a DR. that claimed no one ever tore. Not because i don't believe him, but if you don't tear they don't stitch you, and you end up looser than you would be. Which is why after my 3rd I got a honeymoon stitch.

TMI bitches.

So what did you do after your fifth? get a zipper??

**Nell** · February 19th, 2012, 01:36 AM

Har har. My 4th and 5th were C-Sections.

**CbabyRKO** · February 19th, 2012, 02:35 AM

I tore and my babe was only 5lbs 15oz. I was fucking traumatized not gonna lie. When the doctor was stitching me up I was like wtf is going on lol. I know this is gonna sound gross or maybe invasive but can they check to see if she has um...a healed wound/tearing down there.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · February 19th, 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Nell

Over the next several weeks, the uterus slowly returns to its nonpregnant state, although the overall uterine size remains larger than prior to gestation.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260187-overview

You are never the same after giving birth. I can't believe that they are having so much trouble figuring this out.

Wouldn't that go back to the "what size was it originally" issue? It may be larger but who knows what size it was to start with

**Nell** · February 19th, 2012, 06:46 PM

Apparently it never goes all the way back down. And I think they just use a basic measurement. A normal uterus before pregnancy should be 7.5 x 5 x 2.5cm. Also, even if she didn't tear or anything her cervix would have a slit shaped OS, not a tight pinhole.

http://www.avivahealth.ie/member-info/Know_your_uterus

After birth, the mouth of the cervix will have be somewhat wider, with a fish mouth appearance, rather slit-shaped.

Case is weird. Maybe she shouldn't have lied.

**princessgrandma** · February 19th, 2012, 07:36 PM

Now this is just my opinion but I don't think the girl was ever pregnant. I think she's just your basic garden-variety pathological liar who backed herself into a corner and had to find a way out. She talked about how her family was about babies. I'm thinking that that was her way back in and to get treated like a princess and she took it.

When it was show time, she couldn't produce a baby, so she came up with her story.

My sister was a pathological liar. She lied so much, she herself lost track of where the truth ended and the lies started. Believing your own lies goes a long way in the convincing, but it doesn't create a baby out of thin air.

**Shadow** · February 19th, 2012, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by CbabyRKO

I tore and my babe was only 5lbs 15oz. I was fucking traumatized not gonna lie. When the doctor was stitching me up I was like wtf is going on lol. I know this is gonna sound gross or maybe invasive but can they check to see if she has um...a healed wound/tearing down there.

Yeah, I'm with you. After my first baby, I had 3rd degree lacerations according to the doctor who stitched it all back together. My first baby was 6 1/2 wks early and only weighed 5lbs. My girl bits weren't ready to deliver a child, I guess.

~shadow

**MotherManderkin** · February 19th, 2012, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Nell

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260187-overview

You are never the same after giving birth. I can't believe that they are having so much trouble figuring this out.

Also, I would never go to a DR. that claimed no one ever tore. Not because i don't believe him, but if you don't tear they don't stitch you, and you end up looser than you would be. Which is why after my 3rd I got a honeymoon stitch.

TMI bitches.

Thank you! I don't know how to find links. But yes, your normal uterine size will NEVER be the same after you have been pregnant. Yes, it does contract back down. It shrinks, but it in no way shrinks back down to the size it once was. Uterine size can be measured by an ultrasound. Why haven't they done any of this??? It's blowing my mind.

**MotherManderkin** · February 19th, 2012, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

Wouldn't that go back to the "what size was it originally" issue? It may be larger but who knows what size it was to start with

Your normal basic uterus is about the size of a pear, so I hear lol.

Who is craving pears now, and who won't ever eat them again?

**MotherManderkin** · February 19th, 2012, 09:04 PM

Did you all see this picture?

**VAS1326** · February 19th, 2012, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by malq

Sorry, wasn't trying to correct you. :D I had a doctor tell me yesterday you could tell by the bones of the pelvis. I would have to ask for more details though. What you said makes complete sense and sounds subjective to prove on a live person.
Ohhh i found this, tell me if it makes sense. I am no gyno, I came up through the ranks as a journeyman with enough experience I got my union card.

http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/he...article/cervix

Oh I know but obviously I was wrong saying they couldn't tell. Though I agree it seems like something that would be awefully difficult to do with a living skeleton. I think if it was doable it would be done.

I am willing to bet that labor changes the cervix in some way. I am not a doctor of any sort so I really don't know. The babyzone seems like it may be a better source then myself.

**VAS1326** · February 19th, 2012, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Nell

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260187-overview

You are never the same after giving birth. I can't believe that they are having so much trouble figuring this out.

Also, I would never go to a DR. that claimed no one ever tore. Not because i don't believe him, but if you don't tear they don't stitch you, and you end up looser than you would be. Which is why after my 3rd I got a honeymoon stitch.

TMI bitches.

He didn't claim to never tear but everyone who gave birth with him present that I know did not tear. The doctor cannot determine who tears and who doesn't but he/she can help strech the area to avoid tearing.

I also have to strongly disagree with your stitching statement. Actually I'm going to go ahead and say that's simply not true. For me stitching didn't make an ounce of difference. I think nature knows what it's doing. A stitch is on the outside (the perienum usually) and doesn't affect actual vagina size just the inner labia area.

Anyways here is why I feel your statement is false or at least is not true in my case:

1st baby (7lbs 12oz) tore and had stitches and was about the same. 2nd baby (8lbs 14oz) tore and was not the same at all. Actually was looser then prior too. After all I pushed a big head almost 9 pound baby out it. Not to mention the stitch work done at the MTF was a botch job and I now have some unpleasant scarring. 3rd baby (7lbs 14oz) No tear no stitching slightly smaller then after #2 (was kind of disappointed at first I wanted the old scar fixed lol) 4th baby (6lbs 8oz) no tearing no stitch and back to pre baby #1 size.

Nature works in mysterious ways. I should mention baby #2 was born 6 and a half years after #1. #3 came six years after that and #4 was born 15 months after that.

**Nell** · February 20th, 2012, 12:08 AM

I also have to strongly disagree with your stitching statement. Actually I'm going to go ahead and say that's simply not true. For me stitching didn't make an ounce of difference. I think nature knows what it's doing. A stitch is on the outside (the perienum usually) and doesn't affect actual vagina size just the inner labia area.

We are different and had different doctors. So you don't really know how i tore, where my stitches were, or any of that. So just like i couldn't say that what you said about your own experiences was "simply not true", you really can't say it of mine.

**VXIII** · February 20th, 2012, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by malq

I have tried 3 times to show you just my nipples for a warmup. @dakota keeps blocking my post.
this is my last try

good lord, they look less like moobs and more like double dicks... albeit short little dicks

**VAS1326** · February 20th, 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by princessgrandma

Now this is just my opinion but I don't think the girl was ever pregnant. I think she's just your basic garden-variety pathological liar who backed herself into a corner and had to find a way out. She talked about how her family was about babies. I'm thinking that that was her way back in and to get treated like a princess and she took it.

When it was show time, she couldn't produce a baby, so she came up with her story.

My sister was a pathological liar. She lied so much, she herself lost track of where the truth ended and the lies started. Believing your own lies goes a long way in the convincing, but it doesn't create a baby out of thin air.

If she is a pathological liar it's pretty bad when you confess to killing a baby rather then tell the truth. If it were me I would have been singing the truth the minute the first cop came to question me.

**VAS1326** · February 20th, 2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Nell

We are different and had different doctors. So you don't really know how i tore, where my stitches were, or any of that. So just like i couldn't say that what you said about your own experiences was "simply not true", you really can't say it of mine.

In the post I quoted you very matter of factly said without stitching you will never be the same as if it were fact. You did not say "if I don't tear they don't stitch me, and I end up looser then I would be" No you used the word you (which as a reader refers to me not you) I was simply stating that no I think you are wrong because I did not end up looser without the stitch.

It may be true for you but that does not mean it is true for everyone. Now if you said some people or you yourself couldn't go back to "normal" without stitches then there would be no basis to argue however; you made a blanket statement. Oh I never claimed to know you. I simply disagreed with your blanket statement that

if you don't tear they don't stitch you, and you end up looser than you would be.

**Obsolete** · February 20th, 2012, 01:12 PM

Deleted - How do I put a spoiler on a pic?

**malq** · February 20th, 2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

Deleted - How do I put a spoiler on a pic?

Obsy, if you use the go advanced option when posting you get another screen that has a spoiler button. Actually says spoil. I have to play with it to get it right so I usually just end up posting it and get in trouble. Yuz kinda smart, so you will figure it out.

@Obsolete.

**Obsolete** · February 20th, 2012, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by malq

Obsy, if you use the go advanced option when posting you get another screen that has a spoiler button. Actually says spoil. I have to play with it to get it right so I usually just end up posting it and get in trouble. Yuz kinda smart, so you will figure it out.

@Obsolete.

Don't be too sure about that. I wrapped the spoiler around the pic but when I click "preview post" the photo still shows up. I give up...but rest assured it was a funny post.

**Obsolete** · February 20th, 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by VXIII

good lord, they look less like moobs and more like double dicks... albeit short little dicks

Speaking of double dicks, I just happen to have this photo of @malq laying around.

SPOILER

I hope I did this right.

**VXIII** · February 20th, 2012, 03:22 PM

I wonder if they like having the double dicks or are embarrassed to show them, think id be ashamed if I had 4 boobs... althought Id probobly show them for money