I need the help of our legal folks here (like lawhawk) to see if I understand this. From Charles’ quotes in the post:

First, it appears the investigator believes the mother “smothered a newborn infant”. Isn’t that the most important issue? Did she or didn’t she?:

“local investigator” in Virginia who claims that a woman who smothered a newborn infant cannot be charged with a crime because of a statute that says as long as the umbilical cord is still attached to a baby, the mother can do anything she wants with it — even kill it

However, the investigator takes the position that the mother can’t be charged under existing law:

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.“, says Investigator Tracy Emerson.

But, as Charles posted, that’s not the law:

For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.

So, in my possibly incorrect understanding, the main issue is - did she, or did she not - smother the infant? If she did, Virginia law says she smothered an infant who was defined as “alive”, and the fact that the investigator is incorrect on the law is irrelevant. She should be charged.

Am I missing something?