Chapter 9 - Vanessa’s first defense
Vanessa hired a lawyer.
She did not speak to me.
Good.
Her first formal position was:
She had no intention to strike Emma.
She was moving the pan away from the child.
Emma stood suddenly.
Contact occurred accidentally.
Video contradicted much of that.
Then her statement changed.
She admitted swinging the pan.
Said she intended to strike the tabletop beside Emma to frighten her into moving.
That was more plausible than accident.
Still criminally serious.
The pan was hot but not scalding because it had been removed from the burner seconds earlier.
No significant burn injury.
The main injuries came from impact and fall.
Could prosecutors prove Vanessa intended to hit Emma’s head?
No.
Could they prove she intentionally swung a heavy pan in anger within inches of a four-year-old?
Yes.
Could she foresee injury?
Strong argument.
The case became about reckless and intentional dangerous conduct, not a cartoon attempt to kill a child.
May you like
I preferred accuracy.
Even while angry enough to imagine worse consequences.
