Sterling Man Charged with Abuse after Infant’s Life-threatening Injuries

The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office arrested a Sterling man in a case involving abuse of an infant.

This investigation began June 13, when hospital staff members notified Sheriff’s Office that a three-month-old arrived at the emergency room by ambulance and was later found to have life-threatening injuries. The infant survived, but there are lasting medical concerns resulting from the injuries, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

Mitchell Robert Dowd,

The father, Mitchell Robert Dowd, 31, of Sterling, was arrested on July 17 on a charge of felony child abuse. He was released on a $20,000 bond.

4 thoughts on “Sterling Man Charged with Abuse after Infant’s Life-threatening Injuries

  • 2020-07-20 at 4:38 pm

    Only 20K? Beating up 3 month olds sure is cheap in Loudoun.

    • 2020-07-28 at 10:45 am

      Bond exists because people in our country are presumed innocent until otherwise proven. Maybe this man was falsely accused. I had a neighbor once who got falsely accused and turned out to be a mistake. We always seem to presume guilt when the law says innocence is presumed

      • 2020-07-29 at 11:13 am

        People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the very fact that we can keep the accused in detention kind of disproves your point. If the accused is considered a threat to society, bail is denied, i.e., the person cannot be released before trial and is “remanded” into police custody. If bail is set, it is set based on the perceived threat to society. Clearly, the judge in this case perceives a bit less threat than many people might like.

        I am going to conclude no one consulted the injured child with lasting medical consequences on the amount of threat. And, the low bail indicates it isn’t always about the children and protecting the most vulnerable in society.

  • 2020-08-01 at 9:06 am

    You have reached your conclusion about what has occurred and bond thereof (by reading an article on an alarming charge) – that’s what publicity does. Maybe the judge “perceived less threat” as you noted, because maybe the judge is unsure of the merits of the case. Who knows? How would we know? But like I said I had a neighbor once falsely accused similarly of abuse, and turned out their child had incurred an innocent accident, not abuse. A mistaken rush to judgment. We’ll just have to see what the truth is about this man when he has his day in court. Then we can hate him (or not) accordingly.

    Yes I agree with you, that if, in the example of a 3 month old in the article who was injured, could speak – things would be far easier, faster and certain, in our society to ensure a child’s safety. Because then that child could speak on what occurred. And the child’s own voice would accuse, or exonerate, their parent.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: