ILNews

Butler to host panel on Shuai murder, attempted feticide case

IL Staff
June 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of legal and medical experts will discuss the murder and attempted feticide case against Bei Bei Shuai, whose prosecution in Indianapolis has made international headlines. The event will be at 6 p.m. Wednesday at Butler University.

Attorney Stephen C. McCaffrey, president and CEO of Mental Health America of Indiana and chair of the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction Advisory Committee, will be one of three expert speakers. Others are Dr. Laura Miller, a Harvard professor and expert in perinatal and postpartum psychiatry, and Dr. Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Indiana University School of Medicine.

The discussion also will be webcast. Registration for the event or webcast is available here. Event sponsors include the National Association of Pregnant Women; Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies at Butler University; American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Indiana; Mental Health America of Indiana; Demia; and the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice.

Shuai was charged after her newborn daughter, Angel, died days after her delivery by emergency caesarian section at IU Health Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis. Days earlier, Shuai told friends that she consumed rat poison in an attempted suicide after the baby’s father jilted her. Her friends persuaded her to seek medical attention.

Shuai’s trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 3. She next will appear in a pretrial hearing before Marion Superior Judge Sheila Carlisle at 1 p.m. Friday. Carlisle has ordered attorneys to prepare final witness lists by July 3 for a trial that prosecutors say could last three weeks.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT