COLIN VAN VLECK - 4 Weeks (2009) - Arlington/Bennington VT

An Arlington man pleaded innocent to a felony charge of manslaughter after police said they believed he had caused the death of his 5-month-old son in October.



Russ C. Van Vleck, 27, appeared in Bennington District Court on Friday with family members and his attorney, William Wright. Van Vleck was released without bail pending his trial.

"It's pretty discouraging for the family. Having to face criminal charges now is an opportunity for us to show that what
really happened is … something that was created by nature and circumstances beyond anyone's control," Wright said after Van Vleck's arraignment.

In an affidavit, Vermont State Police Sgt. Robert Patten said Colin R. Van Vleck had been pronounced dead at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center in Bennington on Oct. 3 just after midnight.

Russ Van Vleck had been caring for his son Oct. 2. The child's mother, Lyndsey Van Vleck, had gone to a birthday party in Manchester because her son, who had been sick earlier in the week, had seemed to be feeling better, she told police.

In a statement to police, Russ Van Vleck said he had laid Colin down on the same couch on which Russ was
sitting. About 20 minutes later, Russ Van Vleck estimated, "he discovered that Colin was in trouble."

Russ Van Vleck called emergency responders sometime between about 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. because it appeared Colin wasn't breathing, according to the affidavit.

Police said Russ Van Vleck told them he attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation as instructed by the 911 operator but believed it wasn't helping.

Staff at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center told police that Colin was unresponsive for about 90 minutes after he reached the hospital. Around midnight, medical personnel were able to find a pulse but the likelihood of brain damage was very high and the family chose "to refrain from having Colin's life artificially sustained."

As police investigated Colin's death, they found that he had been sick for several days before his death. He also had a deformity to his head because of complications from his birth and both parents said they had a history of sudden infant death syndrome in their families.

Vermont Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Steven Shapiro, however, found that Colin had been a normal, healthy child and that Colin's cranial deformity did not contribute to his death.

Patten said he had spoken to Shapiro on Oct. 3 after Shapiro performed an autopsy and determined Colin's death was "suspicious."

"Dr. Shapiro would convey that his findings revealed that Colin had blood on his brain, an indicator of trauma to the head. Dr. Shapiro indicated the trauma causing Colin's death was believed to have occurred within a 24-hour period prior to his
death with the likelihood greater that the trauma occurred closer to the end of the time frame than the start," Patten said.

Colin's death was ruled a homicide cause by mistreatment by others.

The affidavit gives no indication that Russ Van Vleck had abused Colin in the past or that he had confessed any istreatment to police. However, Lyndsey Van Vleck told an inquest panel at the Bennington District Court on Jan. 5 that Colin "was doing fine when she left her home" Oct. 2.

On March 12, Shapiro gave police an affidavit that said Colin's injuries would have caused an immediate change in his behavior.

Bennington County State's Attorney Erica Marthage asked Judge David Suntag to place a $25,000 bail on Russ Van Vleck on Friday but Suntag said he couldn't impose bail on a defendant who showed no indications that he was a risk of flight.

Wright argued that Russ Van Vleck had been born and raised in Vermont, graduated from Arlington Memorial High School and worked for his father in the area.

According to Wright, Van Vleck was among the National Guard members who had been scheduled to be deployed last year but Van Vleck's commanding officer had reclassified him because of Colin's death.

In the affidavit, police said they believed Russ Van Vleck should be charged with second-degree murder. Marthage said she had decided to file a manslaughter charge because there was a different level of proof required.

"There isn't adequate information in the affidavit to support (the second-degree murder) charge at this time. There's some
more information we need to gather from various people," she said.

According to Marthage, the amount of time between Colin's death and an arrest in the case was because the "nature of the investigation has been somewhat difficult" involving the wait for results from the medical examiner's office and speaking to witnesses about sensitive topics.

If convicted of the charge against him, Russ Van Vleck would face a one-year mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum possible sentence of 15 years in prison.

A conference has been scheduled at 8:30 a.m. April 7 in Van Vleck's case.

Published: April 8, 2010

BENNINGTON – The trial of an Arlington man accused of causing the death
of his 5-month-old son in October will not begin until at least August,
according to Bennington District Court Judge David Suntag.

Russ C. Van Vleck, 27, was arraigned in Bennington District Court in March on a felony charge of manslaughter.

On Wednesday, Van Vleck, who pleaded not guilty to the charge, was in
court again so that scheduling deadlines could be set in the case.

After setting dates by which depositions must be taken and motions must be
filed, among other things, Suntag said the case wouldn't be ready to be
scheduled for trial until after Aug. 1. However, the Bennington District
Court is not scheduling out that far at this point.

During the hearing, Bennington attorney William Wright, who represents Van Vleck,
said he may file a motion asking that the charge be dismissed depending
on the contents of a deposition by Vermont Chief Medical Examiner Dr.
Steven Shapiro and the information provided by a medical expert
contacted by the defense.

Wright also said he may file motions
that would assert Van Vleck was operating at a "diminished capacity,"
which means someone has an abnormal mental condition that isn't insanity
but would prevent that person from forming the intent necessary to be
guilty of a crime.

According to Wright, Van Vleck was on
medication while being questioned by police so a motion may be filed
asking the court to suppress Van Vleck's statement.

Both Wright and Bennington County Chief Deputy State's Attorney Christina Rainville
said they expected the trial to take at least a week.

The state has a witness list of more than 25 people and Rainville said she expected the case to be "expert-intense."

Court papers filed by the Bennington County State's Attorney's office claim
that Van Vleck "recklessly caused the death" of his son, Colin R. Van
Vleck.

Vermont State Police Sgt. Robert Patten said in an
affidavit that Van Vleck had been the only person caring for his son on
Oct. 2. Colin Van Vleck had been sick earlier that week, several
witnesses told police, but because he appeared to be feeling better,
Lindsey Van Vleck, Russ's wife and Colin's mother, had gone to a
friend's home in Manchester that night.

Russ Van Vleck told
police that he was on the couch with his son watching a movie and then
noticed that Colin was white and didn't seem to be breathing, according
to the affidavit.

Emergency responders were called sometime
between 10 and 10:30 p.m. and the child was taken to Southwestern
Vermont Medical Center in Bennington.

Medical personnel told
police that Colin Van Vleck was unresponsive for about 90 minutes and by
the time they were able to find a pulse, the risk of brain damage was
high. The family decided not to use artificial means to keep Colin alive
and he was pronounced dead shortly after midnight on Oct. 3.

After an autopsy, Shapiro, who said he found indications of trauma to Colin's
head, ruled the death a homicide caused by mistreatment.

Rainville said the state planned to call Shapiro and Colin's pediatrician during the trial and possibly a pediatric neurologist.

The affidavit notes that Colin was born with a deformity of his head.
Rainville said the state expected to provide testimony from the
pediatric neurologist if the defense claims that Colin's deformity
caused his death.

If convicted of manslaughter, Russ Van Vleck
would be faced with a one-year mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum
possible sentence of 15 years in prison.

I received this a a reported abuse this morning:

I strongly disagree with this person's opinion.
I do agree that nobody is guilty of anything until the facts presented at trial and subsequent conviction occurs.
I also agree that there are two sides to every story...and (as Judge Milian says, the truth is somewhere in the middle).
If the complainant has FACTS to back up their side, then let them enter them here.
The facts that we know are:

"Dr. Shapiro would convey that his
findings revealed that Colin had blood on his brain, an indicator of
trauma to the head. Dr. Shapiro indicated the trauma causing Colin's
death was believed to have occurred within a 24-hour period prior to his
death with the likelihood greater that the trauma occurred closer to
the end of the time frame than the start," Patten said.
Colin's death was ruled a homicide cause by mistreatment by others.

This is from the actual obituary. Numerous accounts and sources have 5 Months as his age, and very few, the correction I have now made based on this...

Colin Russ Van Vleck August 27, 2009 - October 3, 2009
ARLINGTON Colin Russ Van Vleck, infant son of Russ Charles and Lyndsey Thompson Van...

I would like to reiterate that we are here to help, not tear down. If Russ is innocent we certainly wish to see him exonerated of all charges and if you would like to refute the prosecutions claims you are welcome to do so.

I am quite curious as to the further details of this case. He had been sick, but it didn't say what he had. Also, I am a bit conflicted about hearing that they didn't give him at least a *chance* because of a "good possibility of brain damage." You can always withdraw support later, but you can't start it back up after someone dies and hours pass. It's missing some details. Was he on a ventilator since he had trouble breathing and CPR done? Did they get the blood off the brain before deciding his brain was damaged irreparably? Was there evidence that he was brain dead? This conclusively would take two EEG's and 24-48 hours and other tests to confirm. Was there evidence of trauma to the head? Even with trauma, is it possible the child could have fallen against something while trying to or sitting up? How bad was the trauma? Brain bleeds can take time to show up, even days, and all brain bleeds are not the result of trauma. They can happen slowly and manifest when they get larger to impede brain function. Some conditions can be reversed with quick treatment. The father called 911 himself. I would just like a lot, lot more information before deciding that this was, in fact, the father's fault. It may or may not be, but like I said, there is a LOT of information missing.

Red is by me, IMFO and very interesting site!


Snipped from http://www.keanelaw.com/blog/in-vermont-the-death-of-5weekold-colin-van-vleck-is-ruled-a-homicide.cfm


Child Abuse
1/5/2010
Christopher Keane
Comments (0)In Vermont, the death of 5-week-old Colin Van Vleck is ruled a homicide.
In Vermont, the death of 5-week-old Colin Van Vleck is ruled a homicide.

News stories report The State Attorney Erica Marthage reports the injuries are allegedly consistent with non-accidental trauma.

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=12167604

"The medical examiner ruled the baby's death a homicide. The autopsy found internal injuries consistent with being shaken."

SBS: Vermont: Russ Van Vleck trial posponed pending experts' opinions



KEITH WHITCOMB JR. : 06/20/2011

BENNINGTON -- A manslaughter trial involving the death of an infant that was expected to continue all of this week and into the next has been put off until at least September.
The trial of Russ C. Van Vleck, 28, who pleaded not guilty to manslaughter in March of last year, heavily involves the use of expert witnesses by both state prosecutors and Van Vleck's attorney, William Wright.
Van Vleck was charged after his infant son's death was ruled a homicide. State medical examiners said there was bleeding in his skull that could only have been caused by trauma within 24 hours of his death. The state has accused Van Vleck of causing the trauma, while Van Vleck has argued his son died from other causes.
Deputy State's Attorney Christina Rainville said it wasn't until Friday that an expert of Wright's was deposed and what his testimony would consist of was learned. Rainville told Judge David Howard that the witness, Dr. Ronald Uscinski, a Maryland nuerosurgeon, would be presenting "junk science" to the jury and didn't want him to testify. She said her own experts did not have time to review what Uscinski was expected to say.
Wright argued that the state was aware of the defense's evidence and had been for some time.
There was some talk of Uscinski's testimony going through a "Daubert hearing," which is a process in which a judge hears argument on the veracity of the science behind an expert witness' testimony and
determines if the jury should hear it. It was determined there was no time for such a hearing, as many of the experts called are practicing doctors and had tight schedules. Some of Wright's witnesses were medical examiners from the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner's Office in Florida, while the state had called Dr. Steven Shapiro of Burlington.
While arguing before the judge, Wright indicated Uscinski would be testifying that "shaken baby syndrome" is a myth in the terms it has been described in this and similar cases, and that an infant cannot die of shaking if the shaking wasn't bad enough to break the neck. He said his experts believe the child's brain had been bleeding since it was born.
Rainville called the theory "junk" and said her experts would say all children born with a "subdural hematoma" either suffer a severe and noticeable one at birth, or it clears up in a few weeks.
Howard said the court will try for a September trial date, and a new jury will be selected. He told the attorneys to let their experts know to set aside two-day slots, as the pace of a trial is not predictable.
"It's clearly not something we anticipated," said Wright in an interview. "It's not something my client wanted; he really wanted to get this behind him."
Wright, a former Bennington County state's attorney, said scheduling of expert witnesses has always been difficult.
He said he feels Howard's decision to reschedule the trial is a fair one, as it will allow the opportunity for all his experts to be heard. "It's anything but junk science, it's hard science," he said.
Wright said while he didn't plan for the trial to be put off, cases involving homicide in Vermont average about a year to resolve. "Nobody wanted this to happen, but will we be in a better position come September? Absolutely."
"In our view there was extremely late disclosure of a defense expert, and a failure to provide the records that defense expert relied on," said Rainville. "The records as of today have not been provided and we just learned of the expert's opinions on Friday."
She said she'd requested the testimony not be admitted and was ready to go to trial. "I'm very disappointed that it's not going forward," she said.
Howard said he doesn't feel either the state or the defense had attempted to put the trial off. Rainville asked that Van Vleck waive his right to a speedy trial, but Howard declined to ask him that. He said if Van Vleck raises the issue in the future, the court will address it, but said the delays have been caused by both sides.
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/local/ci_18318621


http://shakenbabyandsuddeninfantdeath.blogspot.com/2011/06/sbs-vermont-russ-van-vleck-trial.html

Local prosecuters face scheduling conflict with two cases

Keith Whitcomb, Jr. Bennington Banner
Posted: 10/04/2011 09:33:01 AM EDT

BENNINGTON -- The state has filed a motion to suspend one day of a two-week manslaughter trial so the prosecuting attorney can argue another case before the Vermont Supreme Court.
The trial of Russ. C. Van Vleck, 28, who pleaded not guilty to manslaughter in the death of his infant son in March 2010, is scheduled to begin on Oct. 17 and run until Oct. 28. Both sides plan to present great amounts of technical information to jurors using expert witnesses. The state has said it intends to prove Van Vleck caused the child's injuries, which the state Medical Examiner's Office said were the result of a homicide.

Attorney William Wright, who represents Van Vleck, has said his evidence will show the child suffered health problems at birth which ultimately caused his death.

The trial was set to go in June, but the state objected to evidence introduced by Wright, claiming it hadn't had time to examine it, something Wright denies, saying the state was given due notice.

Prosecuting the case is Deputy State's Attorney Christina Rainville, who also handles the state's sex crimes in Bennington Superior Court Criminal Division. Rainville said the Vermont Supreme Court has scheduled her to appear before it in Montpelier on Oct. 20, four days into the Van Vleck case. She said she asked to have the Supreme Court move the date, but it refused.

The state has now asked Judge David Howard, who is presiding over the manslaughter trial, to suspend it for one day. Rainville said he matter will be taken up on Wednesday.
The case she hopes to argue before the higher court is unusual, Rainville said, because it's an appeal on a pending case, something the Supreme Court rarely takes up. She said that in January 2010 the state filed two lewd and lascivious conduct charges against a Bennington man, but a judge ruled there could only be one charge based on a 1994 case, State v. Perillo.

The January case involved allegations that a man touched a girl once on her breast and once on her private area within a short span of time. Rainville said the Perillo case involved something similar, and the court ruled that despite the two acts of touching, it could only be one charge.

Rainville said she's done extensive research into the corresponding laws in every other state and found that Vermont isn't in step with the rest of the country. She said she hopes to argue before the full Vermont Supreme Court and get the 1994 decision overturned. She said it's had far-reaching implications on a number of other cases, some of which are still pending.

She said that because of the complexity of both matters, she needs to be the attorney arguing each. She said that while the manslaughter trial will take precedence, the Supreme Court matter is important as well.

Rainville said the state will send someone to the higher court if she can't make it, but it's not reasonable to expect them to be up to speed and argue effectively.

Attempts to reach Wright Monday were not successful.

http://www.manchesterjournal.com/headlines/ci_19035689

I am the one who requested that the articles from the Bennington Banner be removed because they are not accurate. You cannot label something a homicide before it's ruled a homicide in court. I am the only person in this world that has Russ' child on video camera and will be testifying in court on Russ' behalf and his innocence. I grew up with this individual since I was 6 years old, I know him like a brother. I know he would never intentionally hurt his own child. He was due to be deployed to Afghanistan the year of Colin's birth and this was his way of providing his parents an on going legacy of himself in case he were to die over seas. Believe what you want, but do not call people what they are not until they are given a chance in court. Colin was born August 27th of 2009, and passed on October 3rd of 2009. I do believe that math does not come out to 5 months, but maybe I should go back to school. This trial begins on October 17th and will proceed until the 28th.

Well dewbiez, perhaps you should roll another because at no point did we label this a homicide. THE EFFING CORONER DID!
LE bases their charges on the results of the autopsy.

The medical examiner ruled the baby's death a homicide.

The state has said it intends to prove Van Vleck caused the child's
injuries, which the state Medical Examiner's Office said were the result
of a homicide.

Homicide is a charge, not a conviction.
I wish your "brother" the best as his trial commences. If he's lucky they'll bring a jury up from Florida.

Wow, you are a bunch of hateful pieces of shit around here. Keep up your good work "finding the truth" like you say you do, asshole. At no point in my conversation did I once say, YOU STATED IT, I said the "Bennington Banner printed it". You must need some contextual reading lessons. If you want to find the truth why not show up in the court room on the day of the trial, I'll be there waiting for you, with your truth seeking. Maybe you should go roll another one up Mr Tom"Horrific""420". You certainly aren't terrific.

Also just shut the For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge up. You clearly don't know a thing about this case and are just regurgitating misleading facts and bullshit from the media. You are nothing but a hate monger spreading lies because you don't have a life and have to sit in a forum like a retard "seeking the truth through media outlets". I hope you are blessed with meeting me some day so I can set your shit straight. If you knew anything about our state you would know how crooked our States Attorneys Offices are and what a joke our judicial magistrate system is. If you want true justice maybe you should do some "research" into Judge David Howard who allows sexual predators to walk the streets after they are proven guilty.

dewbiez wrote:Also just shut the For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge up. You clearly don't know a thing about this case and are just regurgitating misleading facts and bullshit from the media. You are nothing but a hate monger spreading lies because you don't have a life and have to sit in a forum like a retard "seeking the truth through media outlets". I hope you are blessed with meeting me some day so I can set your shit straight. If you knew anything about our state you would know how crooked our States Attorneys Offices are and what a joke our judicial magistrate system is. If you want true justice maybe you should do some "research" into Judge David Howard who allows sexual predators to walk the streets after they are proven guilty.

And, is this the judge you will be testifying before?If you are wanting to help your friend, you will want to try to keep your anger in check.Please remember, a court of law is no place to use vulgarity and extreme emotions. I wish you luck, and hope you do not insult the judge, the media and the mentally challenged as you have done here.

Perhaps the Judge would like to be e-mailed the link to this cretin's drivel.
By the by, my feces is not crooked and needs no straightening from the likes of you. Neither we, nor the BB are responsible for the Coroner's determination of the manner of death of Newborn Colin. That lies solely with his expertise and training. If you have facts that prove otherwise (other than having known and supported the defendant for his innocence), then please enlighten us.
Other than the character reference that you intend to offer the jury, do you have any proof that the defendant did not due that which he is accused of? Were you there?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men; The Shadow knows

I have known the mother of Colin for many years and have known his father a few years. This is very sad to me that the media has made so many misprints. As mentioned before Colin was 5 weeks old. Lyndsey was not at a friends house in Manchester that night. I know this because I was with her. I will be testifying in this trial as well. None of these people who are claiming that Russ harmed his child saw Colin before and didn't know how sick he had been. No one is ever innocent until proven guilty. You all should go and read the article on a man from Hoosick Falls NY who was sent to jail for over a yr and a half for the murder of his 9m old child. This child had broken bones and a few other issues and he was released from jail and found innocent on ALL charges! But the sad part is he missed out on a few yrs of his life and because everyone is so quick to jump and point fingers people miss out on many things. I am very disappointed in how the State has acted towards Russ and his family. I will be thankful when this trial is over. May God Bless the Van Vleck family!

To elt802 >

No one is ever innocent until proven guilty.

I believe that you have accidentally reversed that. Understandable considering your close involvement with this case.
Like you, we want a correct and fair ending in this and all cases.
At this point, we have nothing to go on but LE reports, MSM stories and what you and a few others have contributed from the defendants' point of view.
Despite what some vehemently suggest, we are not some "lynch mob" out to get somebody for a crime they did not commit. However, if there was a crime, and from the states' point of view there was, we are monitoring justice for the victim.
The Medical Examiner is a learned professional who has many more years of study and experience than I have, so I must rely on his/her dedication to their vocation. Theirs is not to pin blame on anyone in particular. Only to give an enlightened diagnosis of the cause of death.
I am certain that the defense will present others who will disagree with this conclusion and proffer other diagnoses. Then it will be up to the jury to decide who is most accurate.
Additionally, the prosecution must then present evidence, beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the alleged crime.
Hopefully, the system will work to provide justice for all.

I did not reverse that... See our legal system says that everyone IS innocent until proven guilty... but this isn't the case. Why else would a man sit behind bars for almost 2 years unable to see the world for a crime that he didn't do. Why would one not be allowed around others when they haven't been proven guilty. They treat you as if you are GUILTY until you are proven INNOCENT. I do believe that our legal system does us wrong at time but they are just as human as we are. I would just say follow the papers for the next 2 weeks and we will all know soon enough what the outcome will be. ( Thank you for telling me step by step what they will do in court as if I have no idea) hahaha you are so kind!!!!!

To elt802 >

Listen here you incipient piece of dingleberry: I taught Legal Procedure 101 to you because you and others of your ilk seem to have no effing clue as to how our system works and further seem to have no faith in it.
Despite the Anthony verdict, and my hard core feelings about that, it's still a system and berating it before it has a chance to work is not helping your cause.
I am certain that you will be the first to claim foul when and if your "friend", the defendant, is found guilty. I, however, will be the first to welcome his exoneration and/or applaud his incarceration if adjudged responsible. Unlike Ms. Anthony, I cannot be certain of his guilt and will leave that to the system to decide.
Good luck in court and trust me, we will be following this case very closely!

Overnight, I had another thought about these "supporters" of the accused in this case. Though they claim that the baby was ill, none has ever given us an alternate theory on how the child died while exhibiting obvious signs of abuse.
Further there has been no expression of sadness at the loss of the baby, only in vehement support of the accused.
The attitude I am getting is, "Who cares about Colin, as long as Russ is exonerated".
I believe this says a great deal.

TomTerrific0420 wrote:Overnight, I had another thought about these "supporters" of the accused in this case. Though they claim that the baby was ill, none has ever given us an alternate theory on how the child died while exhibiting obvious signs of abuse.
Further there has been no expression of sadness at the loss of the baby, only in vehement support of the accused.
The attitude I am getting is, "Who cares about Colin, as long as Russ is exonerated".
I believe this says a great deal.

If this baby was so sick and the family knew it, why wasn't he being treated by a doctor? This makes no sense to me!!!!

Bear aka GA wrote:

TomTerrific0420 wrote:Overnight, I had another thought about these "supporters" of the accused in this case. Though they claim that the baby was ill, none has ever given us an alternate theory on how the child died while exhibiting obvious signs of abuse.
Further there has been no expression of sadness at the loss of the baby, only in vehement support of the accused.
The attitude I am getting is, "Who cares about Colin, as long as Russ is exonerated".
I believe this says a great deal.

If this baby was so sick and the family knew it, why wasn't he being treated by a doctor? This makes no sense to me!!!!

YES that is what I thought as I read the articles. It's child neglect if you don't get medical help if you know the baby is ill especially if it's life threatening. I hope that justice is served for Colin. That's really what matters.

babyjustice wrote:

Bear aka GA wrote:

TomTerrific0420 wrote:Overnight, I had another thought about these "supporters" of the accused in this case. Though they claim that the baby was ill, none has ever given us an alternate theory on how the child died while exhibiting obvious signs of abuse.
Further there has been no expression of sadness at the loss of the baby, only in vehement support of the accused.
The attitude I am getting is, "Who cares about Colin, as long as Russ is exonerated".
I believe this says a great deal.

If this baby was so sick and the family knew it, why wasn't he being treated by a doctor? This makes no sense to me!!!!

YES that is what I thought as I read the articles. It's child neglect if you don't get medical help if you know the baby is ill especially if it's life threatening. I hope that justice is served for Colin. That's really what matters.

Especially at 5 weeks old. Just breaks my heart. My grandson is 6 months old, my daughter and son in law would NEVER let him go without being treated, even if he just has a runny nose.

snipped....

The trial of Russ. C. Van Vleck, 28, who pleaded not guilty to manslaughter in the death of his infant son in March 2010, is scheduled to begin on Oct. 17 and run until Oct. 28

http://www.manchesterjournal.com/headlines/ci_19035689

Ok idiots if you had read the papers it said that he was going to the doctors for days before he died and the doctor said it was the flu.... For 2 years we have been sadden by Colins passing so don't sit here and tell us what has been going on and how we feel. Also we are unable to talk about detail with his illness on here seeing it is not our place to state anything that will come up in trial! So now that the trial has started I guess you guys will get all your facts and I hope that the system does do right by this!