The mother was in shock that day in May 2018 as several law enforcement officers, some in tactical gear, stood outside the rural Winnemucca home to serve a search warrant.
“I had a miscarriage, OK? A miscarriage. Why are you guys here over a f**king miscarriage?” Rousseau responded to the deputy.
The single mother, who was already struggling to afford care for her two young boys, was dealing with complicated feelings of ambivalence and guilt about her unplanned pregnancy and stillbirth, her attorney said. Rousseau told the deputies she had been taking large quantities of cinnamon and lifting heavy things while pregnant “to have a miscarriage.”
Deputies walked to a cross that was painted red with Abel’s name written in black on a green plot behind the house, according to the police body camera footage and a police report. They dug up the remains and carried them to a law enforcement vehicle, the report said.
Two days later, Rousseau was arrested and charged with felony manslaughter before she was convicted in Nevada, where abortion is legal, under what legal experts say is a vague and broadly written statute that makes it a crime for any woman to take drugs with the intent to terminate a pregnancy. She was also charged with concealing birth, a misdemeanor, but was not convicted on that charge.
The article details she started working in her very early teens.
11 is not “teens”.
Oh you don’t understand paragraphs, I see.
It doesn’t state that she started working at 14. By 14, she was a skilled laborer.
I’m just trying to figure out when she’d spent 15 years as a taxi driver, before the age of 26.
26-15=11
15+11=26
Did she start as a taxi driver at age 11, or did she not work as a taxi driver for 15 years? I’m just not understanding the timeline.
I think it was badly worded in the article, I believe she was a taxi driver at 15 years of age.
I think maybe “taxi driver” was her favorite job of the last 15 years. I agree that it’s just badly worded in the article.
It’s just that the sentence before it was talking about the job she had at 14 so figured it was one after the next.
Yeah, but I can’t imagine using a 15 year old as my confidant. Then again, adults were telling me about their woes over the phone (I had a job calling people to tell them where to show for a phone book distribution gig).
(edit: typo and formatting)
I imagine most conversations going along the lines of “so how long have you been driving for??” “Shouldn’t you be in school” etc
I think that’s what they were trying to say, and it just got garbled.
That’s exactly what the article was saying.
I’m so glad that y’all debated whether she was lying about her jobs. Very worthy of all of our time here.
When did I ever say she was lying about her jobs? I said the timeline presented by the article didn’t make sense because it didn’t.
A writer in need of an editor is different than an interviewee telling lies.
And it’s the only part of the entire story that you felt was worthy of discussing.
This entire speculating thread just looks like ways to discredit the victim.
She was 26 when she was arrested. The article doesn’t say how old she was when she was recounting her work experiences to the journalist.
If she was 26 in 2018 then she is around 34 now. 34-16 =18 years to be a taxi driver. -2 years in prison She could have done 15 years if she had been a taxi driver from 17-now, but who hires 17 year olds as taxi drivers?
Bro have you ever traveled in America? Go to any airport in the country and you will see 15-20 local “taxi” services, a quarter of which run cash/venmo only.
What does this have to do with anything?
It means that she wasn’t lying and it’s plausible that she was driving a taxi before the age of 18.
Wish you spent half this energy for the actual bad people in this story instead of trying to prove that the victim lied about her work history.
I spent 2 seconds pointing out bad reporting by cnn, im not trying to attack her. That detail adds nothing to the story but doubt, why include it?
Now I did waste more time trying to explaing gradeschool math to someone who is blindly defending someone they dont know from imagined attacks.
It was the only point in the entire story that you felt was worthy of discussion. Why is that?