The Baby Vodka Murder

The Killer
The Killer

On June 8, 2011, a four month old baby was murdered by its most trusted person, the father, in Stone Mountain, Georgia. How? The father added vodka to the baby bottle and fed it to his girl. Keith Furlow, 20, is now charged with murder, a full year after the incident.

The grand jury finally decided to indict him and based on the evidence, the D.A. indicates it should be a slam dunk case because a four month old baby must be fed. They are unable to feed themselves and have zero strength in getting vodka out of a bottle from a cabinet. The case is so deliberate and sick. Yet, Ken is pleading not guilty. The best his Public Defender has to offer is, "accidents happen". Huh, what law school did he attend?

How in the world can this be anything but intentional and premeditated? One cannot accidentally add vodka to a baby bottle, what, is he planning to say he thought it was water? How could this be, what about the vodka bottle nearby? I suppose he is going to state the baby got into it and fed herself. Exactly what jury would ever believe such a foolish statement?

Like Sandusky, some cases do not deserve the "innocent until proven guilty" American jurisprudence. Some cases are simply guilty as charged. Skip the trial and go straight to conviction and save money.

More by this Author


Comments 10 comments

Josak profile image

Josak 4 years ago from variable

Now THAT is a dangerous precedent, I really hope you don't believe anyone should be denied their right to a fair trial under the law.


Sherry Hewins profile image

Sherry Hewins 4 years ago from Sierra Foothills, CA

I'd have to agree with Josak. If it's such a slam dunk case the prosecution should have no trouble proving it.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

I disagree. How could you even think either this guy or Sandusky is innocent? Why waste money?


Josak profile image

Josak 4 years ago from variable

Because everyone is entitled to a fair trial, there have been many many cases that have seemed obvious but are not, we do not rely on the media or public opinion to make judgements on something so important. When I was living in Australia there was a very famous case where a mother was convicted of murdering her baby, the whole thing was a media circus and everyone believed she was guilty, five years later she was found innocent. Or take the Michael Jackson case, neither you nor I have the expertise or knowledge to sentence someone to jail, the courts are specifically set up for that purpose and EVERYONE no matter what they have done or how obvious it is has to have a chance to defend themselves and tell their side, it is no coincidence that every credible state has such laws. Not to mention that it's a very dangerous precedent to take away anyone's right to a fair trial.

Read this: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10453702/deta...

similar cases have occurred before completely by accident.


Josak profile image

Josak 4 years ago from variable

In that case the father was drinking vodka from a water bottle and his wife thought it was water and mixed the formula in, complete accident.


josh3418 profile image

josh3418 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

Fair Trial.


Wesley Meacham profile image

Wesley Meacham 4 years ago from Wuhan, China

I'm gonna have to disagree with your last statement. I can understand why you might view it as a waste of money in a situation like this. I also have a tendency to believe that the fat in government greatly needs to be trimmed. However this is not a place where I would like to see it trimmed. Is this man guilty? Probably. Even from the facts that you've provided in this article there is not enough evidence to prove the man is guilty. There is a lot of missing information here. Was he alone in the house? What were the details of the circumstances surrounding the incident that led to the baby's death? Where was the vodka? Where was the formula? Who had access to these things?

All of these things however are moot considerations in the light of one much more important issue. Being presumed innocent until proven guilty is a right that is given to all Americans. We can not arbitrarily take this right away from a person simply because it seems obvious that someone is guilty of a crime.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Well, let me put it this way. if the DA concludes that the evidence is so overwhelming that it is a waste of their time to try the case because of the "presumed innocent" law, they should meet with the judge, which is impartial, and if the judge agrees, move to convict him. I guess this does happen already now that I think about it- the DA will offer a deal to the defense to avoid trial.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas

Once again, we see the danger and the impact of sheer ignorance in application. This guy apparently was too stupid to realize how dangerous alcohol was to a child of four months. Hopefully the trial will be very short. WB


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

I agree, the father has a wanton disregard for life. Any responsible parent would make sure what looked like water was that. So, if not murder, it is manslaughter like in the Trayvon Martin case.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working