What does it prove? Well it *doesn't* prove the baby is dead. The boy would've been considered missing or even missing & presumed dead until a body had been found or a thorough search had been conducted by authorities and they'd gathered enough evidence to prove there was, without a doubt, a death. They wouldn't just look at the scene, put two and two together and take it for what it is and carry on like that. Don't get me wrong, an empty pram by the water, a mom with a history of mental illness in her family found drowned in the bathtub with an empty pill bottle nearby, and the email the dad recieved - it all looks very, very bad. But authorities have to investigate all these cases anyway. The mom would've had an autopsy done, even if just for formality reasons.
Even in the most obvious cases, suicide isn't considered a "natural death", so they must look in to it and confirm what happened before coming to official conclusions. They would've noted the mom's past family history and looked in to her actions/behaviour leading up to her death and tried to piece together exactly what happened on that day. Obviously they would've interviewed the dad, and he would've told them all about her strange behaviour after the birth of their son, and her building paranoia about the neighbours and how they were out to get her/her baby. They would've had to interview the neighbours too.Would they have been able to hide all signs of the baby they stole? Maybe. Would they have been able to confirm to the authorities that it was all in the mom's head? Maybe. But then when the river was searched, maybe even drained, and no body is found, suspicions would be raised. They would've expanded the search to the entire area looking for signs of the baby. Two people are dead here, they can't just throw their hands up and conclude the body of one of them magically disappeared. At this point they likely would've wanted to go back to the neighbors and fully search their house on the off chance that maybe the mom wasn't crazy and maybe there was more to this story than originally assumed.
They showed an empty pill bottle near the bathtub where the mom died. Did the autopsy results show that the mom died from an overdose of those exact pills? Or did the tests show she'd been poisoned with something else? If the pill bottle was just for show and the neighbours poisoned her with something else, it would've been game over right there. Major hole in the story. On the other hand, if it matched up and they'd poisoned her with the pills from the bottle, there are still many questions - where did the mom acquire the pills from? Whom did she acquire them from? What did the prescription say on the bottle? How long would it've taken for the pills to have taken effect on the mom, how long would it've taken the pills to incapacitate her, and what was her actual time death? What time was the email sent? Does it all add up? What about her body - clearly they would've had to lugged her in to the tub. Does she have any marks on her, any scratches? From what I recall, when the mom first got dizzy, she stumbled around and finally hit the ground. That would've left some kind of bump or mark on her head/body and it would've been seen during the autopsy. How would that be explained? And still no sign of the baby's body, hmm. This likely would've gone down hill real fast for the neighbors.
Even if the investigation was a total failure though, and authorities ignored everything - the couple wouldn't have been able to hide the baby for very long. They'd have no birth certificate, no hospital record of the mom having gotten pregnant again and given birth to a live baby, medical histories wouldn't match if they were ever needed etc. The boy might even figure it out himself when he got older.
reply
share