Infant on mother’s lap in front of house killed by bear in Karnataka, India

bear print


A black bear mauled and killed a four-month-old girl child when she was on her mother’s lap in front of her house at Hadlaghatta in the taluk on Wednesday. The deceased has been identified as Poorvi, daughter of Gowramma.Hadlaghatta in the taluk on Wednesday. The deceased has been identified as Poorvi, daughter of Gowramma.

According to the villagers, Gowramma, Kumar, father and Lavanya, sister, sustained severe injuries. They have been admitted to McGann hospital in Shivamogga. The family members were sitting in front of the house at 8 am when all of a sudden, the bear pounced on Poorvi. When the others tried to rescue the child, the wild animal attacked them also. But the girl child breathed her last on the way to the hospital, they added.

Source Article from

Iceland: Jews Scream “Anti-Semitism” in Response to Ban on Infant Genital Mutilation


They suck the blood off after they mutilate the penis of the baby, yes this ritual is purely Satanic but fear not these demons are still God’s chosen demons no matter what they do! Sorry, meant to say “people”.

Should Iceland outlaw circumcision for boys, a common Satanic desert ritual among Jews and Muslims, it will prevent Jewish communities from being established in the country, Jewish leaders warn. They can take their desert rituals with them and practice them there as much as they want. This is Iceland the land of plunder and pillage vikings. They don’t care about any whiny psycho desert people and their Satanic rituals.

A bill that would ban the nonmedical circumcision of boys younger than 18 has triggered a strong reaction from the heads of Scandinavian Jewish communities. It was submitted by members of four parties and would also punish offenders with up to six years in prison.

In a joint letter, representatives of Jewish communities and councils in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland warn Iceland against becoming “the only country to ban one of the most central, if not the most central rite in the Jewish tradition, in modern times,” urging it to follow Norway, where right to circumcision is protected by law.

Throughout history, “more than one oppressive regime” tried “to suppress our people and eradicate Judaism by prohibiting our religious practices,” the letter reads.

With around 250 Jews living in Iceland without any organized community, banning the ritual, which is obligatory in Judaism, “will be an effective deterrent and will guarantee that no Jewish community will be established,” the letter warns.

The letter “might be perceived as meddling in Iceland’s internal affairs,” the writers admit. “And why should we care?” they ask. Because Iceland is “about to attack Judaism in a way that concerns Jews all over the world.”

“If any country with next to no Christian inhabitants would ban a central rite in Christianity, like communion for instance, we are certain that the whole Christian world would react as well.”

The Catholic community of the EU, however, also condemned the bill, saying it considers “any attempt on the fundamental right to freedom of religion as unacceptable.”

“The criminalisation of circumcision is a very grave measure that raises deep concern,” the Catholic Church in the European Union (COMECE) president and head of the Catholic Church in Germany, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, said.

Icelandic MP Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir from the Progressive Party, which proposed the bill, sees it as “a child protection matter.”

“In Iceland we acknowledge the right to believe but we also acknowledge the right and freedom of everyone to choose and have their opinions,” she told Euronews.

The debate comes as Chabad, a prominent Jewish Orthodox organization, is set to send a rabbi to Reykjavic, the “last European capital” without one.

“We hope to bring this awareness to local Icelandic people and especially to lawmakers in their decision on rules, which we hope will have a religious exemption clause,” Rabbi Avi Feldman said.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

Nestle accused of using JUNK SCIENCE to market infant formula products to gullible women

Image: Nestle accused of using JUNK SCIENCE to market infant formula products to gullible women

(Natural News)
Swiss food giant Nestle is coming under fire for misleading consumers using nutritional claims regarding its infant formulas.

A report by the Dutch group Changing Markets Foundation and Globalization Monitor that investigated the way Nestle markets infant formula around the world found that their health claims regarding nutrition and ingredients were based on marketing strategies rather than scientific evidence. They reached their conclusion after studying more than 70 Nestle baby milk product across 40 countries.

The firm often boasts of its commitment to science, but the report accuses them of manipulating people’s emotional responses to sell their products.

It’s no secret that most mothers want the very best for their children, and the hormones associated with childbirth kick new mothers into protective overdrive. It’s an emotional time compounded in many cases by a lack of sleep and difficulty navigating a new status quo, so many women are vulnerable during this time to marketing tactics that play on their desire to be a “good mother.”

In particular, Nestle has been contradictory in its health claims across different markets. Labels on their products in Hong Kong and Brazil, for example, advise parents not to give infants sucrose, while their infant milks in South Africa contain this ingredient. The European Food Safety Authority is also against using sucrose, as they say it can cause vomiting and failure to thrive.

Similarly, they marketed some of their infant milks in Hong Kong as being healthier because they don’t contain added vanilla flavorings, but the same flavorings are present in other products they sell in South Africa and China.

Changing Markets Foundation’s Campaigns Director, Nusa Urbancic, told The Guardian: “If the science is clear that an ingredient is safe and beneficial for babies then such ingredients should be in all products. If an ingredient is not healthy, such as sucrose, then it should be in no products. Nestlé’s inconsistency on this point calls into serious question whether it is committed to science, as it professes to be.”

“Closest to breastmilk” claims banned by WHO

In addition, the report takes issue with Nestle using phrases like “closest to breastmilk” in its marketing. The EFSA advises against using these words, and the WHO marketing code strictly forbids comparing infant milk products to breastmilk in any way because many of the substances found in breastmilk cannot be engineered. The phrase was also used by the company arbitrarily across products with different formulations, making it clear that its use was purely as a marketing tool.

This is extremely misleading as breastmilk is a personalized form of nourishment that is constantly adapted according to the baby’s needs and contains live substances like immune compounds and antibodies that cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

The report is calling on Nestle to review its products. The company is the global market leader when it comes to infant milk products, enjoying nearly a quarter of the market share. The authors would also like to see tight global standards when it comes to infant milk.

Nestle has long been criticized for its marketing practices when it comes to baby milk products. In the 1970s, it was accused of discouraging mothers from breastfeeding, particularly in developing countries, despite it being not only healthier but also cheaper than formula. One group boycotted Nestle for seven years over their stance.

Being unable to provide a baby with breastmilk can be very disheartening for new mothers, and the last thing these women need is to have multinational corporations exploiting their vulnerability with deceptive marketing practices that could compromise their babies’ health.

Learn more about food and nutrition at

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

SVU: Lawyer Who Euthanized Terminally Ill Infant a ‘Decent Man,’ Baby a ‘Lump of Flesh’

Looks like NBC’s Law & Order: SVU still hasn’t learned a bit from last week’s disaster. Somehow, they’ve managed to jump from raping a conservative pundit straight into euthanizing a ten-month-old baby. Safe to say, decency standards have left the room ages ago.

The February 7 episode “The Undiscovered Country” introduces us to a case where a man named Aaron (Joe Tapper) kidnaps his infant son, Drew, from his wife, Maggie (Abigail Hawk). After locating the man, the NYPD precinct soon discovers a deeper issue between the couple. Their infant son suffers from a condition called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome which causes rapid muscle weakness. Eventually, he will be unable to breathe without a machine.

As part of the show’s “ripped from the headlines” style, this episode takes some of its inspiration from the infamous Charlie Gard case. Both situations involve an infant suffering from a rare genetic disorder that develops into a debate over the morality of so-called mercy killing. However, while Charlie’s case shone a light on government-run socialized medicine in the U.K. sentencing an infant to death against the wishes of his parents, this story adds the twist of the mother being the one who wants to euthanize her baby. In fact, the U.S. government is the one preventing her from doing this because her husband objects to the act and it has to go through the courts.

She makes her wishes explicitly clear to the detectives upon investigation.

Maggie: It’s not like I was going to hold a pillow over his mouth. The doctors have humane ways. We were waiting for a court order. 

Amanda: To kill your son. 

Maggie: To end his suffering. 

Amanda: And you didn’t think to tell us about any of this? 

Maggie: I wanted you to find him. 

Amanda: I feel like I’m chasing my tail. 

Barba: Please, Mrs. Householder, try to see this from our point of view. 

Maggie: You think I’m a terrible person. 

Barba: I don’t know you well enough to judge. 

Maggie: What kind of a mother wants her son to die? 

Barba: Tell me. 

Maggie: Every day that he lives, his pain gets worse. 

Barba: And what do the doctors say? 

Maggie: That there’s nothing they could do. That we can only watch him suffer until– It is killing us, Mr. Barba. You’re a lawyer. I thought that the law was supposed to protect us. 

Barba: It’s also supposed to protect Drew. 

Maggie: But it’s hurting him. Day after day. 

Aaron: The law wants Drew dead.

Olivia: Nobody wants Drew dead.

Aaron: Maggie does. The doctors do. Just wait. You’ll see. Judge Wallace P. Rosen. He’s gonna order us… to pull the plug. Tell me, Lieutenant. Is there a– a law out there that– that entitles Drew to live?

Maggie: It would be so easy if we– I filed a motion in court to let me. Aaron opposed it, but he agreed to do whatever the judge said.

Barba: Appears that Aaron has changed his mind.

Aaron: What if… they discover something? I mean, it could happen.

Maggie: I am not a horrible person, Mr. Barba. If it wasn’t the only thing to do… His doctors say that he has no brain activity. He is a lump of flesh. My beautiful lump of flesh, he should get the peace that we all deserve. He can’t see. He can’t hear. I mean, go. Go look at him. He is all but dead already.

Aaron: You saw him. You can’t tell me… that he’s nothing.

“A lump of flesh.” That’s how this human life is described. Similar to how an unborn baby is written off as “a clump of cells.” Meanwhile, they have no explanation for how a “lump of flesh” with no brain activity, that can’t see or hear, and is all but dead already somehow is in worse pain and suffering every day. Even if this baby somehow has no senses or human functions except for feeling pain, the doctors should be giving him medicine that alleviates any and all suffering, if they are not that is inhumane medical malpractice.

If you think an episode can’t get worse beyond a mother advocating for the death of her child, brace yourself. As Maggie tearfully looks upon her son in the hospital, she confides in ADA Rafael Barba (Raúl Esparza) that she was warned about her son’s potential condition when she was five months pregnant. Back then, her husband, for some reason took the opposite side and suggested aborting their son, but she decided to take the chance of her son being healthy against doctors’ predictions. Now she mourns that “I did the righteous thing, and my baby has to do all of the suffering.” It’s strange how in the midst of this heartbreaking family tragedy we have time to drag pro-life mentality. Apparently, even with one in 10 million conditions, people can always find a way to blame people who refuse abortion.

But it still gets worse. Once Barba has a minute alone with the baby, he gives a brief sign of the cross and turns off Drew’s life support himself! That’s right, a professional lawyer knowingly and willingly takes it upon himself to kill a barely year-old baby. Make no mistake about it, Barba declares boldly to Lieutenant Olivia Benson (Mariska Hargitay) that he “had no option.” I guess consulting a doctor, waiting for the court order, removing himself from the case, or just generally NOT killing someone don’t qualify as options anymore. And here I thought I didn’t identify as “pro-choice.”

We are left to wonder how much Barba’s impromptu decision to pull the plug hurt the infant. We are told Drew was already in pain and suffering, how much more pain and suffering was inflicted on him when the machines suddenly turned off and he could no longer breathe?

The rest of the episode follows the case against Barba for killing baby Drew. Barba’s lawyer argues “that once the government takes away our right to die, it takes away our right to live” to defend Barba’s actions while the opposition lawyer Peter Stone (Philip Winchester) argues the fact that Barba played God and killed a child. It boggles the mind that there is a case at all, but considering the previous episode’s awful court job, we should just be thankful they’re arguing it at all.

Sadly, that argument continues to boil down to defending the murder of a baby because Barba is a “decent man.”

Olivia: Have you spoken to Rafael Barba? 

Peter: Actually, the law says I can’t. 

Olivia: Look, forget the law for a minute. Look into his eyes, talk to him. That man lives in a place that the men who wrote the law don’t even think about. 

Peter: Well, down here amongst us mere mortals, he’s a Class A felon. 

Olivia: You don’t have kids, do you?

Peter: No, I don’t. 

Olivia: Yeah, well, their pain is your pain. Rafael knows that. 

Peter: Look, I know exactly why he did what he did. And I understand completely. 

Olivia: So? 

Peter: So if we as a society ignore it, we are saying that murder is no longer absolutely wrong. Condoning it in one case would allow us to condone it in any case, and that would be capricious. 

Olivia: I’m talking about a decent man who did a decent thing. 

Peter: They shoot horses, Lieutenant, not people. What if little Drew didn’t have MDDs? What if he had Down Syndrome? Or Leukemia? Or a sore throat? What if he didn’t have physical pain at all? What if he was just unhappy?

Olivia: That’s the thing about you lawyers. You’re always talking about the reasonable man. Let me tell you something. You wouldn’t know a reasonable man if he fell out of the sky and he landed at your feet. 

What’s worse is that Peter’s slippery slope argument is not only likely but currently happening. Of course we know that countries like Iceland are eliminating those with Down Syndrome before they have a chance to take a breath, in Belgium, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases from 2014-2015 involved people with a “mental and behavioral disorder.” Once we lose respect for the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, it’s only a matter of time before we lose it for our most “undesirable” citizens.

Like last week’s case, justice is most certainly not served, and Barba shockingly comes away with a not guilty verdict. He’s just a “decent man who did a decent thing,” cursed by the fact that he was willing to kill a baby to end his suffering. Or, rather, that’s what Law & Order: SVU wants us to believe.

Let me just say, I have nothing but sympathy for families dealing with this kind of tragedy or any difficulties regarding terminal illness. In these scenarios, there are no easy answers. That being said, euthanasia, especially for an infant, should not be considered even remotely “decent.” Choosing it over palliative care undermines the development of other more life-affirming pain-management techniques and promotes a dangerously casual perspective of human life. We are better as a species, and it’s high time our shows reflected that, too.

Source Article from

Eggs are brain food: Study shows eggs improve infant brain development

Image: Eggs are brain food: Study shows eggs improve infant brain development

(Natural News)
It turns out, eggs aren’t just good for you, it can also be good for babies too, according to researchers from the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis. In the study, they discovered that introducing eggs to newborn children starting at six months resulted in higher blood centralizations of choline and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), as well as other biomarkers in choline pathways.

The study, Eggs Early in Complementary Feeding Increase Choline Pathway Biomarkers and DHA: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Ecuador, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Lead author Lora Iannotti of Brown School explained: “Eggs have been consumed throughout human history, but the full potential of this nutritionally complete food has yet to be recognized in many resource-poor settings around the world.”

Choline is a known essential nutrient. It functions in a variety of roles, ranging from cell structure to learning, and has been shown to help fend off liver disease, atherosclerosis, and potential neurological disorders. However, most people do not even meet the required intake of choline, despite its importance in the human body. Egg yolks are known to be the primary source of choline. DHA, on the other hand, is an omega-3 fatty acid that has been correlated with healthy aging and infant development, particularly with immune and neuronal functions. A deficiency in DHA later in life can increase the risk of coronary disease and cognitive degeneration. Aside from eggs, other sources of DHA are fish and fish oil products.

“Like milk or seeds, eggs are designed to support the early growth and development of an organism and are, therefore, dense in nutrient content,” according to Iannotti. “Eggs provide essential fatty acids, proteins, choline, vitamins A and B12, selenium and other critical nutrients at levels above or comparable to those found in other animal food products, but they are relatively more affordable.”

According to the study, eggs provide nutrients in a “food matrix” which enhances its absorption and digestion.

In 2015, a randomized, controlled trial was made by the team in Ecuador in 2015. Children aged six to nine months were randomly assigned to be fed with one egg every day for half a year. A control group was also selected and were not provided with eggs.

Earlier papers from the study demonstrated that early introduction of eggs in the diet enhanced linear growth and reduced instances of stunted growth among babies who were given eggs starting at six months.

Other benefits of eating eggs

Aside from choline, eggs are one of the most nutritious foods available. A single hard-boiled egg contains vitamins A, B2, B5, and B12, as well as folate, phosphorus, and selenium. These are also known to raise High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL), the “good” cholesterol that decreases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and other health problems. Studies have also shown that adequate consumption of eggs can prevent the likelihood of cataracts and macular degeneration, thanks to the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin found in egg yolks.

Eggs are also high in animal protein and contain essential amino acids that our bodies need. This is particularly true for free-range eggs, which contain a significantly higher amount of omega-3 fatty acids. These reduce the level of triglycerides in the body, which is a known risk factor for heart disease. (Related: Why Organic Eggs are a Nutritious Superfood.)

Learn more about the nutritional benefits of eggs and other superfoods by visiting today.


Sources include: 1 2



Source Article from

U.S. now leads the industrialized world in infant mortality due to toxic vaccinations

Image: U.S. now leads the industrialized world in infant mortality due to toxic vaccinations

(Natural News)
Out of the top thirty industrialized nations in the world, the United States tops the list when it comes to infant mortality on the first day of life. With so much modern medical technology available, it’s hard to understand why there are so many sudden infant deaths, but it all becomes clear when one begins to recognize the burden of toxicity that vaccines impose on such vulnerable, developing babies. Did you know a Hepatitis B vaccine (dogmatically given to infants on their first day of life) has been shown to cause a 700 percent increase in heart attacks than those who do not take the vaccine?

For every 100,000 pregnancies, about 26 end tragically on the first day in the U.S. This adds up to 11,300 newborn deaths per year. This does not account for the number of spontaneous abortions that occur during pregnancy, which is when the fetus cannot survive in a toxic environment. This also does not account for the growing number of resuscitation emergencies that occur on the infant’s first day of life (following vaccination) or the astronomical amount of C-section emergency deliveries that are conducted to save both mother and child.

A rigorous vaccine protocol for pregnant mothers is harming both the mother and her unborn child, causing complications for a healthy, normal delivery. Hasty vaccination at birth with both the synthetic vitamin K shot and the Hepatitis B vaccine is burdening infant’s bodies on their very first day of life. The onslaught of heavy metals and synthetic chemicals in the womb and immediately after birth combined with poor prenatal nutrition is causing health issues in infants leading to an alarming number of premature deaths.

In most hospital settings in the U.S., birth is mischaracterized as a medical emergency from the start. Once the newborn arrives, the umbilical cord is usually cut prematurely, not allowing all the remaining blood, nutrients and healthy bacteria a chance to make its way to the newborn. Instead, the newborn is separated from the beating heart of their mother, only to be injected with a synthetic vitamin K shot that is intended to force their blood to clot. Regardless of its intentions, this synthetic brew shocks the infant’s system, fills their blood with chemicals, burdens their liver and therefore causes bilirubin levels to shoot up and symptoms of jaundice to appear. It is imperative that the newborn immediately receive skin-to-skin contact with the mother and begin breastfeeding to receive the all-important immunoglobulins through the mother’s colostrum.

In a hospital setting, pediatricians try to force the parents to get their newborn vaccinated with the first round of hepatitis B vaccine. This erroneous procedure assumes that the infant will be sharing needles with a Hep-B positive prostitute or drug dealer. Hep-B vaccine administration at birth is an insult to mothers and fathers alike.

Even though the immune system of the child is not developed in the first year of life, the medical establishment agrees that infant’s bodies should be forcibly injected over and over again with multiple doses of substances such as brain-damaging aluminum, which is designed to augment and force an immune response where there is no complete immune system. The foreign DNA that is injected, including diseased cow and pig blood, monkey cells and aborted fetal tissue, is introduced to an infant’s body through an abnormal route, over and over again. These toxins are injected and not allowed to be processed through their gastrointestinal tract, liver and kidneys first. The influx of vaccine toxins at such a vulnerable age is the concealed factor behind many cases of sudden infant death syndrome.

A mother’s breast milk, with all its nutrients, healthy fats, and immunoglobulins, is the only healthy way to build an infant’s immune system and brain. As documented extensively by the late Dr. Andrew Moulden, every vaccine dose produces harm to neurological development and natural immunity because of its toxic contents and unnatural route of exposure. The diseases that these vaccines are intended to prevent can be faced naturally, to confer lifelong immunity that also contributes to better herd immunity rates to protect infants and the immune-compromised. There’s no need to sacrifice a newborn or infant’s body to a vaccine complication all for the alleged protection that these vaccines promise and still cannot prove.

The most courageous measures we could take to improve infant mortality rates include:

  • Restore rule of law and undo legal protections for pharmaceutical companies granted to them under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Enacted in 1986, this law gives vaccine makers legal immunity from prosecution when their vaccines cause damage, creating a steady payout system only to select families damaged by vaccines.  The law created a gold rush for new vaccines and ensured a constant supply of vaccines while providing NO scientific studies on the risks of compounding vaccination. Undoing this law would force pharmaceutical companies to clean up their vaccines and take seriously the tens of thousands of cases of vaccine damage that go ignored in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
  • Declare compulsory vaccination laws a violation of informed consent and personal and parental rights. This measure should also hold accountable the arrogant pediatricians and nurses who coerce parents into vaccinating their newborns.
  • Provide more sane routes of immune system care, which include making vitamin D supplements, selenium, and chromium readily available and encouraged for pregnant women.
  • Remove the Hep-B vaccine campaign for newborns from hospitals’ standard protocol and the CDC’s obnoxious vaccine schedule.
  • Remove the flu shot and TDAP vaccine campaigns targeting pregnant women.
  • Share vaccine inserts, vaccine risks, and be open about adverse events.
  • Discuss the individual disease these vaccines are supposed to prevent and how easy they are to treat or overcome with a nutritious diet and substances such as colloidal silver and oregano oil.
  • Allow midwifery wisdom to guide modern medical birthing practices for safer, more natural deliveries that don’t rely on pain medication, antibiotics, vaccines, and surgery.
  • Delay cord clamping and encourage skin-to-skin contact with the mother first.
  • Provide breastfeeding support, including wet nurse availability, breast milk banks, and over-the-counter herbal galactagogues.
  • Provide top of the line, prenatal and postnatal nutrition support, making available trace minerals, whole food vitamins, folate, and healthy fats for proper fetal development.

In conclusion, there are many courageous steps we can take as families and as a medical system to improve on the dismal state of infant mortality in the US. This begins with understanding the toxic nature of vaccines and their unnecessary use on an infant’s first day of life and in the womb.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Brazilian off-duty cop vanquishes armed robbers while holding infant son (VIDEO)

Military Police Sergeant Rafael Souza was doing some Saturday shopping with his wife and young son when the two suspects entered the pharmacy. According to local media reports, one of them pointed his gun at the off-duty cop, who then drew his own weapon and opened fire — all while holding his infant son in his left arm.

Surveillance footage shows the moment when Souza unloads into the two men. Apparently, only after killing both does Souza hand his son over to his frantic wife, who is hiding behind a nearby row of shelves. Medical personnel arrived at the scene shortly after and pronounced the two suspects dead, local news outlets reported.

READ MORE: Father gunned down with semi-automatic weapon outside London home (VIDEO)

This isn’t the first time a Brazilian cop has been involved in a shootout while a holding a child. In 2014, an off-duty officer in Campinas, Sao Paulo, was attacked while holding his three-month-old daughter. The cop was forced to drop the baby, but was able to shoot and later apprehend the criminal. His daughter sustained only minor injuries.

Source Article from

Prisoner kills inmate who beat infant daughter to death

Authorities said a man serving a life sentence for murdering his two-day-old baby was found dead in his U.K. prison cell over the weekend.

Liam Deane, 22, who was jailed in October for punching, shaking and squeezing his baby girl to death after she wouldn’t stop crying, was found dead in his cell at HM Prison Leeds in England on Sunday, The Yorkshire Evening Post reported.

RELATED: Click through some of the most outrageous mugshots and crimes

Deane admitted to murdering his daughter, Luna, while her mother was sleeping in their family home in Wakefield, England, last July.

He reportedly lost his temper during the night he subjected his daughter to a brutal attack. The baby died in intensive care after suffering “catastrophic brain injuries” from her father.

SEE ALSO: ‘Good girl’ cheerleader charged with killing and burying her infant

As a result, Deane was sentenced to life in prison and could have served a minimum of 10 years.

Another inmate, John Westland, 28, was charged with Deane’s murder in court on Tuesday and is being held in custody. It remains unclear why Westland was originally admitted to jail.

Source Article from

Mom and dad charged in death of 4-month-old infant found rotting in swing

An Iowa couple has been charged with murder after the decaying body of their 4-month-old infant was found in a baby swing inside their home, according to WHO.

Cheyanne Harris, 20, and Zachary Koehn, 28, called an ambulance to their Alta Vista apartment on Aug. 30 to report that their infant son, Sterling Koehn, had died “just a few hours” after Harris had fed the child.

First responders found the baby in a powered swing seat in a bedroom separate from where the couple and their other child slept, WHO reported.

According to a criminal complaint, maggots were found on the child’s skin and in his diaper. A forensic entomologist found that the child “had not had a diaper change, bath, or been removed from the seat in over a week.”

An autopsy by the State Medical Examiner’s Office also found that the emaciated infant measured well below the fifth percentile in size and weight for his age.

“The facts of this case go far beyond neglect and show circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life,” Chickasaw County Sheriff’s Deputy Reed Palo wrote in the complaint.

Both Harris and Koehn face charges of first-degree murder and child endangerment resulting in death. They will be arraigned on Nov. 2. 

Source Article from