BREAKING NEWS: Stone Acquitted on Both Counts

Yolo-Count-Court-Room-600A Yolo County jury, a day after they had appeared to reach impasse, came back with a not guilty verdict on both counts.  More details shortly.

Previous article…

Attorneys Clash in Closing Arguments in Stone Trial

by Antoinnette Borbon

The prosecution in the case against Quentin Stone began this Thursday with the rebuttal witness testimony of Dr. Omalu. Quentin Stone is accused of shaking his three-month-old baby, ultimately causing his death.

Deputy District Attorney Steve Mount brought Dr. Omalu back to the stand to clarify the difference between a brain that had suffered from hypoxic ischemic injury vs. axonal injury. Dr. Omalu showed several pictures to the jury.

He had pictures from a brain that had suffered the ischemic injury and one that had suffered the axonal. He then briefly explained again what happens to the brain when it suffers a severe trauma, as in the case of baby Samuel Stone.

Restating, the brain tissue showed old bleeding and new bleeding in the autopsy. He stated, “In the case of Samuel Stone, we see as the pressure and blood increases, a stasis of blood is found in the structure, as in the water not flowing, like dirty water, proteins will stop flowing.” He asserts this finding is only caused by a severe trauma.

Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira asked Dr. Omalu if he had heard of Dr. Squire who had put out an article in 2011 indicating that you could not distinguish hypoxic ischemic injury from axonal. He told defense he disagreed with that research, referring back to the textbook he has used for years and his own experience of doing over 20,000 autopsies in both adults and children.

It was now time for the prosecution to begin their closing arguments. The courtroom filled with family and friends anxiously awaiting.

Mr. Mount began with, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your patience. In this case, the people have the burden of proving two things, the first is the medical evidence, the second is the social burden. Mr. Stone is a nice man, just look in the courtroom. But you will have to believe what the doctors are telling you, or what they (friends, family) are telling you about how they feel about Stone and say, how could he do this? What I say is not evidence, what I say is just to help you examine it and decide on what is true. So I want you to look at the story, none of what Dr. O’Donohue says is evidence. None of what character witnesses say is evidence, it is what they feel, and they were not there.”

Mount continued with, “First, you must believe the story of how Sam got from the middle of that bed to the floor but let’s take a look at what we are here for and not here for. Mr. Stone is not charged with murder, the Grand Jury is the one who charges and they are not saying that he did this out of anger, intent or even that he struck him, wanting to hurt him. What the evidence shows is that something happened on October 3, within minutes, causing great bodily injury and death.”

The DDA stated, “This was not an accident, and it leaves you with medical evidence that tells you something happened. No one was home with Stone when this happened to the baby. There is no evidence of it being Sara, because Dr. Omalu showed you that stuff leaks out, is presented immediately upon injury. She had been gone for 2 hours. Stone said he gave Samuel a bottle but there was no sign of vomiting, no one else but Stone could be responsible, no babysitter, no one, it happened within minutes before he was taken to the hospital on October 3.”

Mount stated, “It was two or three incidents that happened but what happened on October 3 is what killed him!” He said medically and socially proving a case may be difficult, but legally “we know he inflicted pain, obviously Sam had to suffer something so drastic and from the evidence of severe brain injury, you will not have to struggle with that one.”

Mount, fighting back emotion, said, “But if you believe he did put him on the bed, then you ACQUIT HIM!” then broke down into tears.

Trying to compose himself, Mount stated, “Trauma that killed him was on October 3, but lets go back to the fall. Dr. Plunkett said he could have gotten those injuries from a fall but, in his own studies, the children died within a 24-hour period after a fall, and Sam had no visible signs on September 5 of a fall, so how did he get those injuries? No signs, yet the inside of his brain is messed up.”

As for the testimony of Dr. Gabaeff, “So shoddy, never even looked at the autopsy? Worthless, he’s a hack…..even Stone told that the baby had pressure on the brain, Dr. Gabaeff said, there wasn’t enough to remove? The brain stem was all swooshed down from all that pressure!”

Deputy DA Mount then turned to the testimony of Dr. O’Donohue, the psychologist who interviewed Jack and the Stone family. He said that the doctor never saw the fall, and it is garbage to say that Jack exhibited behavior of “shame-guilt.” He said the ultimate issue is the story of what happened on October 3, but let’s look at the fall. Assuming Sam fell off the bed, how did he get to the floor? He stated, “Three possibilities, 1. Jack, 2. The dog, 3. He rolled off having a seizure.”

Deputy DA Mount stated, “No evidence of the dog dragging him off the bed, so this leaves you with Jack. Stone said he did not know what room Jack was in. Why would Jack go looking for Sam, when Hank was much more accessible? Remember, he was in the swing. Are we to assume that Jack pushed him off the bed and then decided not to play with him? That story of Jack got pretty hard to believe as reasonable. But if you believe that, you would believe one-sided bleeding, not bi-lateral and you would have to say that Dr. Organo, Dr. Omalu were incorrect, you would have to believe they are all incorrect.”

He says, “Rickets, tested by Dr. Coulter and ruled out and I submit to you, they have a laundry list of improbability and you would have to say all doctors were wrong.”

Mount stated even the rib fractures were agreed on by the doctors as being compression fractures, with the exception of Dr. Gabaeff, who tried to say they were over-interpreted. He said he agreed with Dr. Barnes that you have to look at everything, “we did, this is why Dr. Organo sent a request to Dr. Omalu, a neuropathologist, expert.”

The Deputy DA then shifted to the vomiting. He said it got better, not worse and there was evidence of that in the notes. He said, “Dr. Gabaeff was just guessing towards the end of testimony, he never even looked at the autopsy. But Dr. Omalu looked at the brain, sliced it, tested it and it showed trauma. He says, what he saw happens in minutes.” Mount stated, “If it wasn’t for Dr. Omalu, we wouldn’t be here, and what gets us here are those injuries.” He stated, “The fall does not match the injuries.”

Mount asserted, “Dr. Barnes did not read all the medical reports and talked about using bio-mechanical dummies for his studies and stated that radiology cannot tell you all you need to know, you have to check everything, I submit to you, we did all of these things.”

He said with Shaken Baby Syndrome, sometimes children present with no injury, no signs, no abrasions, no external trauma but if a child fell there would be evidence of an epidural bleed and with those falls, it would be death. He admitted, “Study of SBS needs more research on both sides.”

He ended with, “I gave him the opportunity to tell me what could have happened, but he didn’t … You have to believe in the reasonable possibilities. I believe they began on September 5.”

He said it was Stone who sent the emails to the baby’s pediatrician because he is the one who knew what happened.

Deputy DA Mount ended his first closing with, “Medical evidence just does not match up.”

Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira began with, “Good morning, it’s been a long 4 weeks. This case is about the 93 days they had the pleasure of knowing Sam, the privilege of having him. What happened, that man (she points to Stone) did nothing but protect and love his child. As we sit here today, that man is innocent. “

She stated Sam’s injuries were a result of a cascade of events that led him to a “crash.” Sequeira said, “And I would like to attempt to give you the rules of the law that will get you to that conclusion. You will get a copy of the instructions and you will have to read them but at the end of the day, you are the trier of facts. You have to follow the law, even if you disagree.”

Ms. Sequeira said, “In 12 years, I have believed in the system but in the last four weeks, I feel the system has failed. But not I, not Brushia, not Stone has the burden of proving to you it was an accident. The government has that burden, that means they have to prove every single thing beyond a reasonable doubt. An abiding conviction is something you cannot change what you feel today. I submit to you, they haven’t even moved the threshold. First, why would Stone seek treatment if he caused the injuries? When he was the one who caused them? On September 5, Stone was home with the children. He goes out to close the door because his wife asked him to. He goes out for 2 minutes and comes back to find Sam on the floor. He picks him up and what does he do? He massages him, he is an extraordinary person.”

Sequeira, taking the jurors down the road of Quentin’s story, stated, “He texts his wife and then takes Sam to the ER where Kaiser doctors tell Stone the baby is fine. Kaiser never gave him any instructions when he left.”

She said it was the next day or so that the baby began vomiting. Stone emailed the baby’s doctor and took him back in to Kaiser. It was then that Dr. Villalobos told them after only checking the baby out for twenty minutes, he would be fine. But the doctor did say that she consulted with a neurologist about the limp episodes Stone told her Sam was having.” The defense stated, “She didn’t even do what the doctor asked her to do, she was supposed to watch Stone feed the baby to make sure he did not have a viral infection and did not throw up and she left the room, came back after twenty minutes and told Stone the baby was fine, so they left.”

She stated that Dr. Nelson said if he had known about the limp episodes, he would have ordered the CT scan, but Dr. Villalobos never told him. In fact, Sequiera stated, the baby was taken to his well-baby checkup and told everything was fine even after Sara’s concern over the limp episodes, the vomiting and the tracking issues. She said they once again sent them home saying, “Everything is fine, don’t compare the two.”

The defense said, “I know there is a lot of controversy on both sides but the government has to, at the end of the day, has to prove non-accidental vs. accidental.”

In fact, she stated, in their own words, their experts impeach each other. Coulter says shaking alone, and Omalu says shaking plus impact.

She went into Dr. O’Donohue’s testimony. She said, “The risk factors for abuse were not met but I have to tell you, I think that it is unfair to say you have to be poor or uneducated, on drugs, to be more likely to hurt your kids…but I won’t go there … and you don’t call 911 to get help if you abused your child, you hide it.” Dr. O’Donohue talked about the guilt and shame Jack felt and how Stone said that he saw him in his room, staring at the wall in the corner.

Sequeira stated, “Seizures precipitate collapse on October 3, and you heard that at UCD, he had over a hundred seizures, some in front of the family, even nurses who could not identify them as seizures.”

Insisting on the testimony of Dr. Plunkett, she said that a subdural hematoma can be caused from natural diseases. She stated, “The seizures can cause hypoxic ischemia and Dr. Omalu told you he did not have that in autopsy findings.”

She said the family asked doctors at UCD for a second opinion and was told it would only prolong the suffering of baby Samuel.

The defense turned its attention to the testimony of Dr. Barnes. “He testifies in these cases because he is one who used to get convictions for testifying for the prosecution on child abuse cases. He wants to make right his wrongs. He testified there was no abusive head trauma.”

Sequeira then talked about the story being reasonable and it was prosecution that was not reasonable. She said, “Dr. Gabaeff is not a hack, and agrees with Dr. Plunkett on findings. The reality is on September 11, he had another episode of limp/seizures and Sam’s vomiting did not get better.”

Turning her attention to the people in the courtroom there to support Stone, once again she stated, “Why would the people in this room be here if they did not believe without reasonable doubt, that Stone was telling the truth? Why would they get on the stand and lie, why would his wife be here?”

Finally, closing with, “Don’t believe them, believe the character of Mr. Stone. Why would he make up the story? In fact, my client gets angry at me……(laughing) ah…I meant, he tells me not to get angry but that is who I am, that is my personality. I was ready to crawl out of my chair!”

She told the jurors to look at [jury instructions CALCRIM No.] 350, 351 instructions about the character of Mr. Stone. She says he was said to be calm, gentle, peaceful, empathetic and a natural parent. “I went crazy during this trial and I’m not accused of killing my child.”

She points out that in the instructions of 351, it says a character’s opinion can be a part of reasonable doubt. “Do you think these people come in here, listen and just bury their heads in the sand?”

The government wants you to believe something else…..Sequeira began to cry…..I don’t understand why someone is here because he is telling the truth…..this man sitting right here is innocent, he loved him and did not kill his son, no matter what Deputy DA tells you in rebuttal, you have the chance, use the law, let this man move on, find him not guilty!” she sobbed.

In Deputy DA Steve Mount’s final closing, he too, would find himself overcome with emotion, having to pause in between words.

“I want to start with what Martha said about what I believe, but I said what I believe is up to each and every one of you, it is your decision…my belief is irrelevant. What I think, what I feel, what I believe does not count. I don’t know Stone. He has always been nice, courteous, kind and these people say the same thing. But no matter what you say, these people are biased. But your job is to look carefully at the evidence and come up collectively with a verdict. That is your job, that is the way our government works, our system works. You have to come to your verdict with an abiding conviction, you have to be able to say, I looked back on that trial and I still believe my decision was correct.

“Why would he seek care – he had to seek care. When you get to October third, he couldn’t make up another accident – you can look to see if any instructions were given to him by Kaiser. Dr. Otani said he was fine, he told her it was an unwitnessed fall, that is a red flag. He was two months old, he couldn’t move off that bed. The kids who show more external injuries are older, they can tell someone where a bruise comes from, Sam was a baby, he couldn’t. What killed Sam happened in minutes, we couldn’t make those facts up. And again, what I say does not count.

“There are a lot of discrepancies from doctors but that is why we have an autopsy, that is why we take the other step with Dr. Omalu. When defense compares Omalu to Gabaeff, she says it is apples to apples…but it is not, it is apples to bananas. I will say it again, Dr. Gabaeff is a hack.”

He stated, “No doctor can open up a brain and be wrong, no doctor can open up ribs and not see fractures.”

“Dr. Omalu doesn’t care what side he comes from, he looked at all the x-rays, the brain and that is what he saw!” Mount stated the hemotomas by defense’s experts are glossed over. He said if the pressure had kept going as defense’s doctors said it did from the first incident…it would have grown bigger each day and the vomiting would have increased. Again, they talk about what things could happen and not about what the evidence showed did happen!”

He closed by telling the jurors that it was hearsay that Coroner LaBrash told the family they could not have a second opinion on autopsy.

He said the seizures did not cause the bleeding, but the trauma caused the bleeding. Dr. Plunkett could not provide one single person who had fallen and sustained the injuries Sam had with only a three-feet fall.

Dr. Squire did not testify and what he said in disagreement with Dr. Omalu is to attack his opinion.

He said that they, the defense, say they are here to tell Sam’s story, but they are here to tell Quentin Stone’s story.

“You owe it to Jack and Sam. Jack is going to grow up with that story…” Mount broke down.

There was a pause…..”We wouldn’t be here if not for Omalu, the defense is right…and we all think Stone is a nice guy…he shouldn’t be here… look at the physical evidence.”

“You have to search your heart, soul and mind and look carefully at all the evidence,” he sobbed.

“Good luck to you all.”

As the jurors filed out of the courtroom one by one, a few were in tears. The jurors have now been sent to deliberate.

To get updates of what is happening in the courtroom please follow us @DavisVanguard #yolojustice .

About The Author

The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

Related posts


  1. Tia Will

    From the reporting here, it would appear that both sides were playing the “I am more moved emotionally than you”
    card. Is crying from attorneys on either side really what we perceive as the best means of arriving at the truth of fact in an emotional case ? Do we really care whether or not an attorney is outraged, or scornful, or angry, or sad ?
    Isn’t what is supposed to matter here is the factual evidence ? Why do we, as a society, continue to put up with these theatrics clearly designed to prevent the jury from dispassionately considering the evidence ?

    Am I the only one that is truly disgusted by these displays ?

    1. tj

      I think the emotional theatrics are meant to sway jurors who are “emotional thinkers” rather than “analytical” and logical thinkers.

      It’s interesting that trials are mostly verbiage. How would it be if everything was in writing and jurors read and analyzed the evidence and written testimony from, say, depositions?

      Yes, I’m sure you’re in good company, Tia. Trials too often seem to be public spectacles. Just like capital punishment, not done quietly and privately, but instead as a staged event with audience and cameras.

  2. Elizabeth Bowler

    What concerns me is what I perceive to be the reckless misuse of public funds to prosecute both Stone and Talamantes. Neither case should have been brought against these defendants, IMO.

    1. Tia Will


      I tend to be in agreement with you on this. However, there is one issue that I think puts the prosecutors in a very difficult position. In each case, there are other children whose well being is at stake. Let’s suppose that in either case they do not prosecute, the families are reunited and history repeats itself with another child injured or killed.
      Can you begin to imagine the public outcry, the charges of incompetence and the degree of vitriol that would be faced by whomever made the call not to prosecute ? And that is beyond what ever personal responsibility they would use to castigate themselves. In the Stone case, I do not see any way out at all given the uncertainty all the way around. In the Talamontes case, there could be separation from the children and treatment offered without having to go through the ordeal of a murder trial.

      1. Elizabeth Bowler

        I certainly hope that Stone will be reunited with his family so that he and they can begin to put this nightmare behind them.

        The prosecution should have gone for Talamantes’ insanity plea instead of proceeding with a first degree murder trial. Following an NGI finding she would be committed indefinitely to a state hospital for treatment of her mental disorder. She would not be released until her doctors were satisfied that she no longer posed a danger to anyone.

  3. Antoinnette

    I think they were faking any emotion? It was tough to try this case I’m sure.

    Actually, prosecution never showed any emotion til closing. I know it may have been a lot for jurors to see,.hear, but I believe they were both honestly overcome…

    Either way, the facts were lpresented very well on Steves part and defense did a.good argument too.

    Now, it is up to the trier of facts, the jurors.

    Im glad its over….

  4. Antoinnette

    Meant…they were not faking.

    Yes, why dont we wait til they take another life….ugh…

    Whats the pojnt of a legal system if we dont have to answer for what we do? Preposterous!

    Stone vs. Stones…two different circumstances but both acvused of taking the life of their child…only difference is…one isnt denying it….sorry, couldnt disagree more…

    You eant to see the danger….wait for the Dorsey Trial…perfect example.of a violent man who beat others, then the two year old of his girlfriend…killing him…

    Let justice be done!

    So Sad, there is NO sympathy for the innocent children…you just ss well ssy they deserved what they got….sickens me…

  5. Tia Will


    What is fascinating about the concept of Justice is that people frequently do not agree on what it is.
    Does justice mean punishment, or does justice mean restitution ? Do we believe that more suffering constitutes justice, or do we believe that justice is served if those still endangered are protected ? To not want to inflect suffering even on a perpetrator does not mean that one is not sympathetic to the victim. These are two different issues at least for me. I do not believe that it is mine to judge and to inflict pain on others. It is to me to protect innocents from further harm. However, which group of innocents do we protect ? Do we protect only the direct victims of a crime, or do we also protect the innocent family members of a perpetrator ?
    Not so black and white from my point of view.

  6. Antoinnette

    Agree, Tia…for the more part. I am not saying impose more suffering, rather that we have to be punished for breaking the laws. However absolutely agree, it should be something to restore.

    Sorry, if that sounded a bit harsh, as I have always been merciful and would push for a better.sense of.justice.

    I am just a bit more intolerant of child killers…..just a part of me but, yes, justice needs to be in better restoration.

    Tia, thank you for putting things in reasonable and kind form…..I can always gain from you!

  7. Elizabeth Bowler

    The most important group to protect are those who are accused of crimes they did not commit.

    Hopefully the DA’s office will focus on prosecuting criminals rather than innocents and the mentally ill.

  8. Tia Will

    “The most important group to protect are those who are accused of crimes they did not commit.”

    While not downplaying the importance of protecting the innocent, I would propose that the most important group to protect are those whom are completely defenseless, the children.

    In questionable circumstances, guilt is determined not by those of us following news stories, but by those 12 jurors subject to hearing whatever evidence has been allowed and the instruction given them by the judge. I agree that this system results in the conviction of innocents ( AJ Dev ?) but until we are willing to look at the flaws and biases of the system, we will continue to err.

  9. Elizabeth Bowler

    I was referring to the criminal justice system, not society as a whole. Certainly, as a society, we must protect those least able to protect themselves. In a criminal trial I refer to Blackstone’s formulation: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”,

  10. Davis Progressive

    this was the right decision. there was clear reasonable doubt. too many errors have occurred with sbs. just because you think it’s not a fall, doesn’t mean that you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt it was murder. it’s not a binary system.

  11. Elizabeth Bowler

    I am so very pleased to hear this! I hope now that there will be a very serious look at these SBS cases before any DA ever thinks about prosecuting one in the future. The US needs to go in the direction of other countries which are the starting to prohibit the prosecution of SBS cases in the absence of physical evidence (eye witnesses, confession, video evidence) other than that suggested by certain medical experts. At least this poor family, that has been so dreadfully victimized by an overealous criminal justice system, can now begin to put their lives back together and look toward the future. I sincerely wish them all the best!

  12. tj

    Yes, great good news. Terrible what the Stones have been put through.

    As to protecting children after one of their siblings has died, that’s the job of CPS, Children’s Protective Services,
    to determine whether the remaining children are safe or not, and how to keep them safe. CPS can check in regularly if there’s any question about the remaining children’s well being, and they can provide the children with simple information and instructions about who to talk to if they feel even slightly endangered by anyone.

  13. Tia Will

    I am pleased with this verdict as I do not believe that the prosecutions case was made beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, I am sincerely hoping that no one here takes this to mean that children are not injured by very well intentioned caretakers who use shaking as their preferred means of punishment. This happens in families.
    How do I know ? It was my mother’s preferred form of punishment. I do not know how old I was when she started but I do know that she used this on me until I was old enough to pull away and run away from her. I remember the severe headaches and sometimes nausea that would follow these episodes. I do not contest that SBS may in some cases be over used as a cause of death. However, I would hate for anyone to think that the acquittal in this case can be used as evince that children are not harmed in this way.

    1. tj

      Small world, I was shaken, too. It stopped when I realized, the last time, that I wasn’t going to die after all. I guess I gave the impression it had lost its scary effectiveness.

      A doctor told me that it’s unlikely to be injurious for preschoolers, but is very dangerous for babies.

      In this case, there was graphic testimony that shaking can break an infant’s neck, amongst other injuries.
      I think, and I hope, most people reading the Vanguard are using non-physical methods of discipline.

  14. Pingback: BREAKING NEWS: Stone Acquitted on Both Counts - Davis Vanguard

  15. Tia Will


    Your last comment made me smile. I guess there was one good outcome from my parent’s techniques of shaking
    ( my mother) and “paddling” ( my father). I decided long before having children that I would never use a physical from of discipline or punishment. Yes, it is possible to raise well behaved, considerate, caring children to adulthood with a system of example, positive reinforcement for desired behavior, redirection and or brief time outs or suspension of privileges for bad behavior. My kids don’t know it, but they have their grandparents to thank !

  16. Antoinnette

    Well…..although I do not share your joy on this verdict, I will agree, Tia, that physical punishment can get out of hand…I too, decided to raise my twins and youngerer daughter without it due to the nature of my background.

    I find it interesting to read people are happy with the verdict, yet reference the effects of SBS……

    “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh,” James.

    Hard to disregard the likelihood it happened, isnt it….just my observation…

    1. Davis Progressive

      “I am pleased with this verdict as I do not believe that the prosecutions case was made beyond a reasonable doubt.”

      i’m not sure that constitutes joy. the system is set up to protect the rights of the innocent by putting the burden on the prosecution to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

      “I find it interesting to read people are happy with the verdict, yet reference the effects of SBS……”

      the problem is the lack of scientifically verified and tested standards for what the impacts are. you are also asking laypeople except dr. will and dr. bower to weigh in on medical testimony.

      “Hard to disregard the likelihood it happened, isnt it”

      the standard is not whether it was likely it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt. you seem to have to gotten emotionally invested in this case – that’s natural – but it’s clouding your judgment here.

  17. Antoinnette

    To an extent, @Davis Progressive…but respect the jurors decision per law.

    Never going to agree over the evidence.

    If prosecution or defense had gone one step further and had the one test experts agree may be the missing piece to the puzzle, we would have known more conclusively on guilt or innocence….

    But it is all over now….glad.

    Too, it may be time for me to move on….

    I do appreciate your comments….

  18. Tia Will


    I just wanted to make one point clear. My approval of the verdict reflects my belief that I feel that the conclusion of the jury was based on the existence of reasonable doubt. I do not know what actually happened to
    baby Stone. I do not even know whether or not the baby might not have been injured at the hands of his father.
    If I were a family member, I would probably never again trust in the same way that I had previously because I believe that there was enough evidence presented to engender doubt, just not enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

  19. Antoinnette

    Thank you, Tia….yes, I agree and do understand….

    You make logical sense……and I do know from a few jurors that they did believe guilt…however, some of the expert testimony was not clear so t..they had no choice but to chose aquital but again, this was only some of them who gave feedback.

    One juror was actually overcome with emotion over the decision of others to aquit but would not talk about why to press….

    Agree, It would certainly leave me with a mistrust if it were accused of my family member…but time could resolve it if you believe in them and their innocence, I suppose?

  20. Tia Will


    What i am hoping for is that all involved will be able to be able to go forward building as strong and productive a life for themselves and their families as possible. This wish extends to the Stone family, the lawyers, judge and jury involved, all of the doctors involved whether as providers or witnesses and to you and all of the interns covering this case. I cannot see how any of the participants in this ordeal can have come away unscathed and I wish the best to all.

  21. Antoinnette

    Well said…..and thank you! Tia….yes, it has certainly had an impact. For me, on more than one level. It just isnt exactly what it appears to the public, personal knowledge of things…lets just say the media bought it hook, line and sinker… for me…I know better.

    However, will move forward.

    I will leave it at that….making enemy of this world for speaking up, has never been a concern of mine. Making an enemy of Christ to defend evil will cost me eternity….

    I have to take time to seriously think about my position with the vanguard….as it has often compromised my beliefs, faith….

    But I have the utmost respect for you, Tia…and thank you graciously for your words of wisdom…I am surprised you are not a psychologist….you are so eloquent and understanding of the human psyche…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for