‘Cold-Blooded Hate’: Toddler Murder Trial — Prosecution Closing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: This case is about a mother who refers to her child, not by his name, but calls him the child. That child's name is Carter Ambrose, and his mother, Gilbert, repeatedly called him the child. He didn't have a name, he didn't have an identity, which he testified. He's just the child, like an unnecessary piece of chattel, or an object that gets thrown in the kitchen junk drawer. I told you from the start, you don't have to choose who did what. They are each party to the crime of each other. They are parties to each other's crimes. And there is no doubt that two-year-old Carter was murdered. He was murdered by the two people who were supposed to care for him. Now, I get two opportunities to talk to you, so I get this opportunity, and then the defense is going to get to talk to you, and then I get to come back. At this point, I kind of want to walk you through the indictment, because there's a lot going on, so I want to take it charge by charge. So count one, I want to take it charge by charge, and then the defense pointed out something, I think, when talking about malice murders, it's murder that involved premeditation. Premeditation is not an element of malice murder, malice can be formed in an instant, a depraved heart. It's an intentional killing of another without justification. And what you had in this case was testimony from the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, as well as the former chief medical examiner. Evidence of those injuries of the child, not one groups, there were multiple, multiple injuries. His abdomen, hemorrhage in his brain, he had an injury to his groin area, his scrotum, both external and internal, all right? These repeated strikes are malice. That is what malice is. They are repeated, they are intentional, and on a two-year-old child, they are 100% depraved heart. This was not an accident. Count two is felony murder. It's based on cruelty to children in the first degree. So this felony murder doesn't require malice. All it requires is the intentional, committal of cruelty to children in the first degree, which then caused the death of Carter. Cruelty to children in the first degree is the intentional infliction of pain on a child at the age of 18, which caused the death of Carter Ambrose. Again, the injuries, the repeated blows on that child. Count three is the cruelty to children in the first degree guilt. Intentionally causes cruel physical pain on a child at the age of 18. Count four is felony murder. This is based on aggravated assault. An object which, when used defensively, is likely to result in serious bodily injury or death, caused the death of Carter Ambrose. All right? Now, in that indictment, and I didn't hide this from you from the beginning, the exact nature of the object being unknown to the grand jurors. And I told you, I didn't hide the ball from you. You're going to have some questions. You may have some questions. What object was used? All right? All it has to be is an object, and you look at the nature of the object, how it was used, whether it's a baseball bat or a fist. All right? Likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. Count five is the aggravated assault, which underlines the felony murder that I just outlined for you. Count six is murder in the second degree. Murder in the second degree is based on a negligence theory. Again, malice is not required. The only count that malice is required is the malice murder. Murder two does not. It operates differently. It's a negligence standard. All right? Here, the negligence caused cruel and excessive physical pain to Carter when he has a lacerated liver and has been sick all weekend and nobody gets him medical attention. That is the negligence. He should have gone to the doctor before Tuesday. And cruelty to children in the second degree. The criminal negligence, which I'll define for you. A failure to act, which shows a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured by the failure to act. As the moments, as the hours ticked by, Carter slowly died. So, remember the time of injury was in the mid-morning. The time of injury was in the mid-morning. So, remember the time of injury was 24 hours before he died. So, that was Monday morning, all the way up to 72 hours after that, which was Saturday morning. Remember the time of injury was in the mid-morning, Sunday was when Carter was not fine. There's a couple other things I want to point out legally for you. One is the statute of limitations. So, there's dates in the indictment. They don't actually mean a whole lot. All the state has to do is prove to you that this crime was committed on a day within the statute of limitations. So, it's easy on murder because there isn't. As it relates to the felonies, so, you've got the aggravated assault, cruelty to children, second degree, and a couple of the other ones. It's a four-year statute of limitations. So, this happened November 17th. The indictment was towards the end of 2023. So, it was November 17th, 2020. Indictment was in 2023. On my count, we're three years, not four years. And remember, the prosecution doesn't commence at the start of trial. It commences at the time of indictment. So, this indictment, regardless of the time frame complaining, was returned timely. Other issue that I want to point out, and I don't know, it really hasn't come up at this point or not, but the judge is going to read a bunch of the law to you, and in that is then you. You have to try a case. You have to, where the crime was committed. Usually. So, in this case, the injury was inflicted in the apartment in Houston County. You were wondering why we kept asking, is that in Houston County? Because that is an element of the crime that the state has to prove. This apartment complex is in Houston County. That is where Carter was from Saturday evening all the way until he was rushed to the hospital. During that whole time frame, it's all in Houston County. So, I don't want you to get caught up by that. Thursday was the last day. It could mean you saw his son alive. This two-year-old boy on a bike. Drops him off at daycare, happy and uninjured. You'll never see Carter again, MF. Those were her words. Boy, how true are they. Friday, he's at daycare. He's happy. He doesn't seem injured. He eats his food. He wasn't throwing up. And the defendant picks him up. Saturday takes him to Granddad's house. He's happy, playing. He's uninjured. He's not throwing up. And then the defendant has Carter by herself the rest of the day, Saturday, as well as most of the day, Sunday. And during the day, he's fine. She's the only person who has him. Boyfriend comes over. They have dinner. And that's when Carter is complaining of stomach pain at bedtime. And in her first interview with Sergeant Collins, she says that's when he was thrown away. It's not until the second interview that she changes her story. She moves it out to when she didn't have access to him. But that Monday, Carter is sick in bed at early morning hours. She goes to work. Her boyfriend stays home with him all day Monday. Carter's throwing up again. Throws up overnight. He's complaining of stomach pain. And Tuesday morning is when he's rushed to primary pediatrics. She drives out of her apartment. complex within yards of the doctor's office. And continues on her day. Leaving Keon to deal with her dying child. Again, you don't have to decide who did it. You don't have to pick one or the other. It's not all or nothing. It's not all or nothing. All right? These two people had access to this child when he was symptomatic. The only two. Everybody else who came into contact with this child leading up to Saturday evening said that boy was happy. He wasn't throwing up. Carter never said. He never told the defendant that Keon did it. He would run to me and point and tell me who hit it. He didn't do that. He didn't do that. And she don't know what's going on. He didn't know nothing about anything. She is not particularly worthy of belief. She changes her story. After the fact, she's making up reasons for how it happened. She's bringing up that he fell. Maybe on the couch or the bed. Fell in the bed. Rolled back and hit his head. She's asking about CPR when Darren Meadows, Lieutenant Meadows, was talking to her. There's a lot to do about asthma. Underlying conditions. He was sickly. You heard those medical examiners. There was no underlying disease. His lungs looked fine. What he had was a two-inch tear of his liver brought on by blunt force. He was sickly. It's a claim that she doesn't know. I call 30 million times a day. I FaceTime. I always check in when someone else has my child. And she's right there. She's right there. The time frame for the injury, when it was inflicted, is the closest to the time of death is Monday morning. So if you go back, she's the one who was right there with him the whole time. And according to her, she watches him like a hawk. I mean, she calls him a crybaby. He's dramatic. What a way to talk about yourself. Here's an autopsy photo. You never see Carter again. And then, once the injury's been inflicted, she calls Kadeem. Because he's EMS. And then he doesn't come get the child. Boy, does he regret that. I can't imagine having to carry that guilt. I cannot imagine. So she leaves him with Keon. Because she's a single mother. What else am I supposed to do? And lets him deal with the problem. She left him holding back. But then doesn't blame him. Which is a bit odd. Rather, according to Kadeem, the man that she wanted to take the child because he was sick, wanted Carter to go with him. When he discusses with her the autopsy report and injuries of the child, and if he finds out Keon did something, he doesn't know what he'll do. She gets mad at him. She gets mad at a father grieving the death of his son for having the audacity to suggest that Keon did this. Now, I think I brought it up in my opening originally. And that is reasonable doubt. You're going to hear beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge is going to instruct you on that. I spoke about it with you all a little bit on Monday in my opening statement. I like to think of it as pieces to the puzzle. Yes, this is a circumstantial case. And I told you from the beginning we didn't have an eyewitness. There's no CSI Miami, one hour, you know, DNA, solve the crime, let's go home. It's all circumstantial, but there are plenty of pieces to this puzzle. The first one is that the defendant and her boyfriend are the only ones with custody even at the outset of the symptoms. She changes her story. Her second interview, she tries to point her story away from herself. She doesn't go as far as to blame Keon, but she starts to build her own timeline. She's never blamed Keon. She's even defended him. She calls him 30 million times a day. And let's not ignore the fact that this is a substantial injury. This is a two-year-old boy with a lacerated liver, a two-inch laceration. But that's not the only injury he has. He has multiple injuries, including to his groin area, his scrotum. And he's a crybaby. He cries over everything. That's what the defendant says. You're not going to sit here and expect me to believe. That this child was not in serious pain. The two-inch laceration of the liver. And that it was just a minor tummy ache. There's no chance of that. You're not going to tell me this child wasn't in the fetal position, holding that stomach, rocking back and forth with a lacerated liver. And that's why Kadeem couldn't see his child. That's why he couldn't FaceTime or talk to that boy. Because remember, she's mad. She blocks him. He said it happens sometimes. But she's never refused him access to the child until the weekend his liver is lacerated. I have serious questions as to whether or not providing the child, providing, letting Carter go with his father or leaving him home with a pionk was not a setup to point this somewhere else. She tells others it's because Carter fell. And she doesn't tell the police that. But she tells Daycare Williams that. She tells Gazette that. Building this story. How could this have happened? And then she bragged about the investigator. Which is kind of an odd thing to do. And then when she testified, she couldn't even say Carter's name. Now this isn't the only time I'm going to speak to you. I'm going to speak to you again. I don't know. I have more to say. But this is not an accident. This is cold-blooded hate. Murder. Malice. Depravity. No child should have died like this. Thank you.