Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if the mom is foreign but there are countries where it’s totally normal and safe to leave babies outside stores, in the cold too.

I highly doubt this was a Finnish national leaving their baby in the car.

Who said anything about Finland? BTW, it absolutely could have been a Finnish national/diplo. My first thought was this is not an American woman. I don’t know why, it’s not like no American woman has ever done this- it just hit me that way.

Anonymous wrote:She is probably from a low crime country and this is a misunderstanding of "how things work" in scummy crime ridden DC. In England people used to leave a row of babies in prams outside the waitrose while they shopped, sunning themselves and getting their vitamin D. I'm sure it's cultural. I'm also loving how we (you) are basically all focused on the "rape victims clothing" right now. Someone stealing cars on M street is a bold move, and car theft is bound to result in mayhem and death at some point. I was almost massacred stepping into the street in Georgetown the other day when a car took the corner Grand Theft Auto style, probably driving away from a crime or stolen. This is squarely on the perps.
But sure--call for her head. Maybe they'll take the baby away and give it to the DC child welfare system so it can grow up to be a car jacker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washingtonian Problems just reported on instagram that the parent was inside of Le Labo when the baby and car were taken.

Yup Jackie Bentsen too.
“Witnesses tell @nbcwashington the child’s mother was inside the Le Labo fragrance store when the vehicle (with baby inside in car seat) was taken. Technically, that makes this a vehicle theft NOT a carjacking.”

I hope she is charged as who leaves a baby in the car in the middle of the winter to a fragrance shop. She didn't deserve that but you take the baby with you.

The parents lost everyone's sympathy. This is reckless. Many assumed parent was pumping gas, that is my worst nightmare.

I am sure what the parents did is illegal. Yes I am "blaming the victim" here but the real victim could have been the baby.

Anonymous wrote:This is when we need to pull video from every traffic camera, bring in the dogs and helicopters, and find these guys. They need to be put away for a very long time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, why isn't the license number released?

My first thought too. Wouldn't the owner know the license plate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if the mom is foreign but there are countries where it’s totally normal and safe to leave babies outside stores, in the cold too.

I highly doubt this was a Finnish national leaving their baby in the car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the tire on her rental car was so deflated she had to stop and ask for help without attending to her baby, how did the rental car get so far away with the thieves?

You can drive on a flat tire. You can drive pretty fast and/or far. It will do a lot of damage to the vehicle that will be expensive to repair, which is why car owners don't do it. But why would a carjacker care about wrecking a car? They wreck them all the time. Life is a GTA game doncha know.

You mean the thieves drove from Georgetown to SE (probably via through Virginia) on a flat tire, with sparks flying everywhere once they quickly would have killed the rims and wheels, no one calling it in to 911, no one noticing the awful noise?

Not possible.

+1. That doesn’t make sense. There are witnesses and the people who worked at the store - so far no one has mentioned her asking for help with a fire problem.

PP here. What I meant was that I don’t believe when she stopped at 30th & M she had a flat tire like others suggest. Maybe she got an error message that her tire pressure was low, but while you can drive on a flat tire, you cannot drive safely or without be noticed for long considering the car was driven to at least SE to drop off the baby. Sure you can have the flappy tire and then the noise but quickly you wear it down to the rim and the wheel and then you’ve got metal being driven on asphalt at 50+ miles an hour which gives sparks, smoke, an awful smell and very loud noise. I haven’t read anything re the thieves being seen driving the car with a flat tire and all that could entail. I don’t even think they’ve even found the car. And it was a rental car apparently.

The story doesn’t make sense. She also should have had a phone to call the car rental place or AAA or roadside assistance or someone to help her. Instead she was seen inside a candle store. Did she think they could change her tire? Why didn’t she take the baby with her? It all is super crazy.

Anonymous wrote:Is all the blame here toward the mom warranted? This is what I read:


2D- Kidnapping / Stolen Auto

The Second District is investigating a Kidnapping and Stolen Auto that occurred on Friday, January 5, 2024, at approximately 1803 hours in the Unit block of 3000 M Street NW.

The complainant was traveling with her four-month-old daughter when a tire deflated on her rental vehicle, a white Jeep. She pulled over in the 3000 block of M St NW and exited the vehicle to ask for help. While outside the Jeep, which she left running, an unknown suspect entered the vehicle and drove away with her four-month-old daughter westbound on M St NW.

At approximately 1853 hours, MPD officers received a call that an unknown individual left the child, still in her car seat, in the 1500 block of 28th St SE with a note stating that the baby had been lost from Georgetown. After knocking on the door, the suspect fled. No lookout is available. The homeowners then took the child to the Sixth District Police substation. There is no available lookout for the complainant's vehicle at this time except that it was a white jeep of an unknown make and model.

If you have any information about this incident, please contact the Command Information Center at 202-727-9099 or send an anonymous text tip 50411

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is wild. Sounds like they knocked on the door and left the baby on the porch.

Glad it ended well. Wonder if the car will be torched on the PG border.

This is a really heartwarming turn of events. They did the right thing.

It's a rollercoaster of a story. They did do the right thing. Still feel horrified by the mom. some witnesses commented that she took her time smelling all the candles at La Labo, ran out clutching one when she saw her car was gone, and then came back in to talk to the Police there.

What witnesses? Do you have a link (l googled but didn’t find). Her behavior sounds too crazy to be true.

NP here. I read that in the comments of the Washingtonian problems insta page. I think it is in this particular post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1vV3uBRXM6/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who will get custody of the child? I assume it will be with city services until the investigation is complete.

Oh FFS. No, city services is not going to hang onto the infant. Mom is not the one who committed a crime here!

Leaving a baby in a car is a crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who will get custody of the child? I assume it will be with city services until the investigation is complete.

Oh FFS. No, city services is not going to hang onto the infant. Mom is not the one who committed a crime here!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Anonymous wrote:Who will get custody of the child? I assume it will be with city services until the investigation is complete.