A baby was left battered and bruised by his babysitter but the accused abuser won’t face any charges.
Why?
Because the poor infant can’t speak for himself. Yep, that’s actually the case.
Joshua Marbury’s one-year-old baby boy Jacob was covered in bruises and scars from the beating, but the babysitter has been let off the hook because of a 2012 Oregon Court of Appeals ruling that discourages prosecutors from filing charges since the toddler can’t talk.
His father Joshua is appalled that the charges have been dropped. Little Jacob was smacked so hard across the face that it left him with a black eye, bruises and a bright red palm print on his face.
Jacob’s mother Alicia Quinner told the Daily News: “I’m so extremely upset, it’s disturbing, on this little innocent baby. To think someone could do this to him.”
The strike could have been fatal, according to a detective, and Marbury said the babysitter actually owned up to the attack.
Marbury took to Facebook to express his frustration: “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,” he wrote.
The babysitter won’t go to court over the alleged incident as a result of the 2012 ruling that the victim must be able to describe the pain suffered, according to Oregon Live.
Marbury told the News: “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… I don’t understand why this law is in effect.”
He also said the babysitter was once his best friend, and made up several lies and excuses to cover it up. He first suggested Jacob fell, then claimed he accidentally dropped him.
Quinner is fighting for the babysitter to be prosecuted, and also hopes to spur change in the loophole that protects child abusers.
Marbury’s Facebook post has now been shared more than 300,000 times.
