Chapter 6 - REBECCA’S CHOICE
Rebecca’s trial was scheduled before Helen’s because prosecutors believed resolving her role could clarify whether she would eventually cooperate.
Her attorney sought severance from Helen and obtained it.
Their defenses conflicted.
Helen claimed she slipped during a symbolic ritual Rebecca helped design.
Rebecca claimed she expected only harsh words and a frightening gesture, not a release.
The court allowed jurors to hear the relevant messages but not every detail of Rebecca’s infertility history.
Her losses mattered to context.
They could not consume the case.
At trial, the prosecution showed the video of Rebecca blocking me.
Once.
Then again.
The second time, Lily was already above the stone rim.
Rebecca looked back at Helen before shifting directly into my path.
“She had time to move toward the baby,” Prosecutor Emily Carter told the jury. “She moved toward the mother instead.”
The defense argued Rebecca froze inside a toxic family hierarchy.
A psychologist explained that prolonged manipulation and grief can impair judgment, increase dependency, and create tunnel vision.
On cross-examination, the psychologist agreed:
“Impaired judgment does not mean absence of choice.”
Nolan testified reluctantly.
Rebecca had told him the shower would “finally make Margaret understand what losing a child feels like.”
“What did you think she meant?” the prosecutor asked.
“I thought Helen would force Margaret to apologize publicly.”
“Did you ask?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because any question about the party became an accusation that I did not support Rebecca’s grief.”
He had chosen quiet too.
He faced no criminal charge because there was no evidence he knew about the fire plan.
His testimony exposed another layer of tolerated extremity.
Andrea testified about recording the event.
Rebecca’s lawyer asked whether she had disliked Rebecca.
“I barely knew her.”
“Did you hear Helen explain the ritual?”
“I heard her accuse Margaret.”
“Could Rebecca have believed the baby would remain secure?”
“Maybe before Helen opened her hands.”
The answer was fair.
Then I testified.
Rebecca sat fifteen feet away.
The last time we had been that close, she was between me and Lily.
Her attorney asked whether I blamed Rebecca for my mother’s actions.
“I blame Helen for releasing Lily. I blame Rebecca for stopping me while knowing Helen intended to frighten me with my baby near a fire.”
“Did Rebecca throw the child?”
“No.”
“Did she touch you?”
“She used her body to block me.”
“Did she ever say she wanted Lily hurt?”
“Not to me.”
“Did Helen manipulate communication between you?”
“Yes.”
“Did that affect your relationship?”
“Yes.”
“Do you believe Rebecca’s grief was genuine?”
“Yes.”
“Do you hate her?”
I looked at my sister.
“I do not know what relationship remains. I know what she chose in the yard.”
The defense played the message in which Rebecca said:
If you actually hurt Lily, I’m done.
Her attorney called it proof she rejected harm.
The prosecutor played what happened after she saw Lily raised above fire.
Rebecca did not stop Helen.
She stopped me.
Rebecca chose to testify.
She described years of treatment, loss, and Helen’s belief that I had stolen her place.
“I wanted Margaret frightened,” she admitted.
“Why?” the prosecutor asked.
“Because she seemed happy while I could not breathe.”
“Did Lily cause your losses?”
“No.”
“Did Margaret?”
“No.”
“Then why use the baby?”
Rebecca began crying.
“Because Lily was what Margaret loved most.”
The courtroom became silent.
“Did you know Helen would hold Lily near the fire?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Margaret would try to reach her?”
“Yes.”
“Did you agree to block her?”
“Yes.”
“Did you believe Helen would release Lily?”
“No.”
“When Helen lifted the baby above the stones, what did you do?”
“I froze.”
“You moved twice.”
“I mean inside.”
“Did you tell Helen to stop?”
“No.”
“Did you move out of Margaret’s path?”
“No.”
“Why?”
Rebecca stared at me.
“Because part of me still wanted her to feel it.”
That sentence ended the defense built around complete misunderstanding.
The jury deliberated for twelve hours.
Rebecca was convicted of conspiracy to commit felony child endangerment, attempted interference with parental custody, obstruction, and being an accessory before the fact to an aggravated act placing Lily at risk.
She was acquitted of attempted murder as an accomplice because prosecutors had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she shared Helen’s specific intent to kill.
The verdict separated cruelty from murderous purpose.
Rebecca collapsed against the defense table.
Sentencing was deferred until after Helen’s trial because the state still wanted truthful cooperation.
Rebecca requested the original plea agreement.
The prosecutor declined to restore terms automatically after trial.
She could still cooperate, and the court could consider it.
Consequences did not disappear because denial failed.
Three days later, Rebecca asked to provide a complete statement.
She admitted Helen had practiced lifting a weighted doll above the cold fire pit the evening before the party.
“I watched,” she said.
“Did she release it?” Detective Ortiz asked.
“Yes. Onto cushions.”
“Did you ask why?”
“She said she needed to know whether James could move fast enough.”
The detective became still.
“Helen was testing the rescue?”
“I thought it was part of the scare.”
“Did James know?”
“No.”
“Why test whether he could catch the doll?”
May you like
Rebecca covered her face.
“Because she knew she might let go.”
