After pleading guilty Thursday to charges that she abducted a baby after poisoning his mother, Elizabeth Ambos Ohlemacher surprised her lawyer by trying to take it back when she returned to court Monday.
Visiting Judge J. Ronald Bowman ruled that a deal's a deal. He denied Ohlemacher's motion to withdraw her guilty pleas and sentenced her to nine years in prison, the punishment worked out in a plea deal between attorneys in the case.
Ohlemacher, 34, had faced 10 felony counts stemming from charges for giving Janie Kaczor a drink that made her pass out and then briefly kidnapped Kaczor's baby son, giving him back only after Kaczor threatened to call police.
Prosecutors agreed to drop five charges, and Ohlemacher pleaded guilty Thursday to five other felony charges: attempted contaminating a substance for human consumption, tampering with records, extortion, using a sham legal process and abduction.
At times, Ohlemacher was pleading and polite. She also expressed anger and seemed to be breaking up as she listened to the prosecutor criticize her.
"I have lost sleep since then because of it not sitting well with me," said Ohlemacher, who wore handcuffs and an orange jail jumpsuit. "There is no way I will plea to something I didn't do."
Ohlemacher said she had talked to her sister and mother and concluded pleading guilty was a mistake. She noted that while a kidnapping charge against her was being dismissed, she'd pleaded guilty to abduction.
Ohlemacher's public defender, Richard Garand, told Bowman his client's change of heart was "something of a surprise to me." He said Ohlemacher's effort to withdraw her plea was against his advice.
Ohlemacher told Bowman she blamed him for "intimidating" her into pleading guilty. She said Garand told her the judge threatened her with a longer sentence if she went to trial. Bowman angrily denied threatening Ohlemacher with a longer sentence.
"I would never do that in four million years," he said. "I didn't say one word about you getting a bigger sentence. I don't know these facts. It's not for me to know."
The judge said he merely pointed out that if Ohlemacher went to trial, she would face sentencing on all 10 charges if convicted and that other facts could come to light.
Bowman said under the law he cannot allow Ohlemacher to withdraw her plea unless her rights were violated or there was evidence she didn't understand what was going on. If she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her rights to trial and pleaded guilty, he said she can't take it back.
Garand said he believed proper procedures were followed when his client pleaded guilty and that he believed she understood what was happening. He said Ohlemacher is suffering from "buyer's remorse."
Assistant Prosecutor Sandy Rubino said he gave Ohlemacher and her attorney a copy of the proposed plea agreement on Monday, three days before her guilty plea.
Rubino said Det. Helen Prosowski of the Sandusky Police Department worked very hard on the investigation, assembling a "mountain of facts" in the case.
To the ex of ohlemacher's wrote on April 25, 2007 6:59 AM:"please... i hope this "ex" in 2000 isn't the late Dr.Reed... wait can you still be called "Dr?" due to the fact that you lost your license?? first- there's not enough poison to put in o.j. when you have or had your body weight & height. 2nd~ i recall a certain "few " robberies that happened to you. except it isn't robbery when you hide the so called stolen goods. now lets look @ the fraudulant workers comp. claims with the state of ohio... and the so called school that was going to be opened... what about all of those?? this is like a bad can of worms... then what happened when the faimly unit moved to new mexico? i feel for the children. those kids have seen more than most of us will ever in a lifetime. i had hopes that this man was the one for beth, considering how charming he can be. and how elated he was with the birth of THIER son. but things didn't go that way. between the mental abuse and the physical abuse that was endure. "
case........ wrote on April 25, 2007 6:26 AM:"I see her case against the EMS and their personelle was dismissed. Another of her actions that was aimed to work the system for money. And just where did she get a knife in the Erie County Jail to cut her wrist? She must have used paper or a pencil."
northerner wrote on April 24, 2007 11:15 PM:"She (and other) wants us all to believe this is just some conspiricy coverup and that she just wants to be the mother of the year. There are 3 dads out there that are salvaging 5 young souls from a life filled with lies and fraud - these kids have to be much better off now. Her character shows in the video when she just snickers during the sentencing. I see no sign of remorse on her face. She doesnt appear to be sorry for anything that she did to her victims or her family. She going just where she belongs-and not a moment to soon! "
Responsible wrote on April 24, 2007 10:51 PM:"I think it is funny that she is worried about the black mark on her kids future. Her kids will only be responsible for their own actions. Not those of their mother. Let her think about that. She did it, she owns it, and she will pay the consequences. She did not think this whole thing through."
This is just part of the circle wrote on April 24, 2007 10:25 PM:"To EX of Ohlemachers.........I have spoken to you many times. I know I believe you. She told me she did it and you told me about how much she took. But you were out of state. Unfortunatly for you she opened Credit Cards and alleged that you were married. What a crock. I told you she would get hers. I sure hope you are satisfied with this outcome, and you can move forward gracefully. "
CSI wrote on April 24, 2007 9:49 PM:"kodz: check out the detective and her "mountain of evidence" in this case. Therein lies the key to the "credibility" of the mom. Check out the Sandusky Forum - News-"Sandusky Cop Rapes little girl" thread and watch the video. Keep in mind that the video misrepresents that the cop got 12 years when he actually got four three year sentences that run concurrently. Cobbwebb: Your response is noted but how many ducks make a row? "
If The Shoe Fits... wrote on April 24, 2007 8:52 PM:"To Ex of Ohlemacher's- I have heard stories about Beth- unfortunately she seems to prey on people who trust her. And, to kodz- I don't care if the mother of the baby was unstable or had problems of her own- it does not justify or excuse Ms. Ohlemacher's actions. She is one sick person- at least when she's locked up she won't be able to hurt anyone on the outside. Beware however, cellmates. "
An Ex of Ohlemacher's wrote on April 24, 2007 8:31 PM:"Beth Ohlemacher attempted to kill me in August of 2000. The police would not go after Ohlemacher with charges since we had a previous relationship. (I know - I must have been crazy at the time)I was drugged by Ohlemacher in my orange juice and I have not recollection for over 36 hours. She robbed my house and bank accounts during this time.She will do this again when she gets out of jail. Be ware, you may be the next victim. "
kodz wrote on April 24, 2007 8:29 PM:"I don't care to really debate this with anyone. I understand everyone's view. However, just a few thoughts. ""SOMETHING" is NOT right here. I think the real truth with how things transpired in this situation lies with the boy's mom and Eliz. I realize there may be some real straight forward facts that are hard to debate w/ the defendent:-Eliz.has some serious psychological issues? yeah, probably so.-She used a child to deceive someone in her life? yeah, seems that way. -She had sexual relationships in her day? seems so.Don't get me wrong--by NO means am I justifying any of her actions. I agree--if you drug a person and take their child, that's all she wrote--guilty is guilty. Question: Exactly how many hands did this drink pass through before being tested? And..just a thought: if you think Eliz. is so calculating etc..do you really think she would "kidnap" this kid? and think she could get away with it? My question: How credible is this mom? The whole situation seems very shadey. Starting with the mother of the boy, right down to everyone involved. As is the situation w/ many court cases, there are some rather serious issues which I think have yet to come out. I just hope the parties involved can live w/ sending a woman to prison for this many years for something that doesn't seem to be so cut and dry. Think about it: she was willing to "not" take the guilty plea and take a chance in receiving more time for some reason? There is a reason. All I'm saying is that I think we have "yet" to know the whole truth on this one. Final thought: May God be by all parties involved and guide them to a better place. "
Cobbwebb wrote on April 24, 2007 7:55 PM:"TO: CSI: My opinion of Mr. Baxter stems from following every move he made for 12 straight years, having had the ability and authority to be aware of things "off the record." I know that statement will get me in trouble because I am not at liberty to explain it. And I certainly can't say, "trust me." Let's try to leave it as my "opinion" of the man, and we all are certainly entitled to that. And, entitled to disagree. Let's save some for later, CSI. It will surface. HEY, YOU AT THE REGISTER, when you gonna get spell check on this thing? "
Buff wrote on April 24, 2007 7:54 PM:"CSI: Maybe you and Buff-oon can get together and go the courthouse and read the documents. They're still not part of the official court record. What is part of the record is who was found responsible for improperly (and probably illegally) filing those pleadings. CSI: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... "
STEVE STIFFLER wrote on April 24, 2007 7:28 PM:"I can't wait till the June Playboy comes out so I can see Brittany Binger NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!!WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
CSI wrote on April 24, 2007 7:23 PM:"Buff: I will repeat my question. Are you referring to someone other than Mrs. Baumgartner in your comment that I have cut and pasted below?"The allegations against Kevin Baxter were contained in motions filed by a mentally disturbed, disbarred attorney. These were filed in a case which she had no connection to other than that she had spent time in the same jail as the defendant. The prosecutor's office properly objected to these motions. They were ruled on and ultimately denied and then wisely stricken from the record of the case in which they were fraudently filed.""
Hey Buff-oon wrote on April 24, 2007 7:20 PM:"I'm not CSI and the documents are still filed, recorded whatever you want to call it in the courthouse as of last week. Anybody can read them for themselves. "
Buff wrote on April 24, 2007 7:11 PM:"CSI-you're the one with the answers, you tell me.Filed in the Clerk's Office and stricken from the record are two different things."
Hey Buff-oon wrote on April 24, 2007 7:01 PM:"The motions you refer to are still filed in the court house. You are right about one thing they were filed by a mentally disturbed individual but he's not disbarred--yet."
If The Shoe FIts... wrote on April 24, 2007 6:57 PM:"Beth Ohlemacher deserves to be in prison. Drugging a mother and stealing her infant and passing it off as hers is very criminal and dangerous indeed! And, for her to sidestep the issue by suggesting she 'dated' a county employee- well she's good at manipulation, isn't she? Let's deal with the real issue here- a woman who has no remorse for the harm she has inflicted on others and does not accept responsibility for her actions- and not suitable to raise her own children!"
Buff wrote on April 24, 2007 6:51 PM:"CSI: just because a person is found competent to stand trial doesn't mean that he is not mentally disturbed.I don't recall referring to Ms. Baumgartner."
CSI wrote on April 24, 2007 6:39 PM:"Sorry Buff, your statement is an absolute lie. Elsebeth Baumgartner has been mentally evaluated at least 7 times with no finding of mental illness.Cobbweb I disagree. I don’t think describing Kevin Baxter as "a fine man" is accurate."
Newswatcher wrote on April 24, 2007 6:07 PM:"Kevin Baxter??? Is this the same guy that was the “special prosecutor” of the election fraud investigation in Cuyahoga County??? …the investigation that led to the indictment and conviction of 3 low level female election workers who were allegedly doing what they were told by their superiors, while Michael Vu resigned and flew off to San Diego and Bob Bennett was thrown off the Board, but not until he was able to obtain assurances from Jennifer Brunner that there was no wrong doing on his part. "
X Clubber wrote on April 24, 2007 5:58 PM:"She'd win at trial because HMMMM and the rest of her demented sociopathic peers would acquit her as not guilty by reason of insanity. Her taste in so called males proves she's nuts. She's a Sandusky Icon..I nominate Elizabeth for Queen and Rubino for ugliest Drag Queen. By the way can she get it reversed based on prosecutor threats? He'd scare me into a bad deal too."
Buff wrote on April 24, 2007 5:24 PM:"The allegations against Kevin Baxter were contained in motions filed by a mentally disturbed, disbarred attorney. These were filed in a case which she had no connection to other than that she had spent time in the same jail as the defendant. The prosecutor's office properly objected to these motions. They were ruled on and ultimately denied and then wisely stricken from the record of the case in which they were fraudently filed."
trial by peers...HMMMM wrote on April 24, 2007 3:38 PM:"If Beth is given a trial by her "peers" I believe she would get MORE TIME. Most of her PEERS are disgusted by her lack of a work ethic, relying on the system, and her justifing all of her actions. Her personal knowledge of others circumstances and problems she USED to hurt them. She is nothing more than a demented sociopathic liar. I personally was involved with a victim who went through tormented hell from not only her, but her mother as well. Beth was slapped on the wrist. A trial by a jury of her peers would just lead to more time. She should be satisfied she will get the time she got and not more. Furthermore, she should be happy. She will RIGHTFULLY be living on the system instead of manipulating it."
Finally someone gets it wrote on April 24, 2007 2:49 PM:"Re Cobbwebb:I understand your point concerning the use of the word "if". I should have included that the standard in the legal profession is the mandatory withdrawal at the mere appearence of impropriety. Also, the allegations against Mr. Baxter were filed in court pleadings in both cases as I recall. If they were false allegations certainly Mr. Baxter as prosecutor was required to defend the integrity of court records and his own reputation for that matter by filing falsification charges against the person who filed the false statement. In court pleadings, if one doesn't respond to an allegation by formally denying it, the allegation is admitted. I can't recall Baxter ever formally denying court filed allegations in the court proceedings. Thus by default he admits to the truth of the allegation. His divorce also tends to confirm the women's statements."
Cobbwebb wrote on April 24, 2007 2:33 PM:"This is to: "Finally someone gets it." Thank you for your kind words. If I may, Mr. Baxter has gone through this before, ala the theft by a young woman from a grandmother several years ago. It fizzled. Please, let's wait and see what happens now. The key problem I have with what you wrote is the word, "IF." So many people beyond yourself, use the word "if" to jump to conclusions and lead others there. Politicians do this all the time. Some advice from an old-timer --- Always take the high road."
BEET RED, MORTIFIED, AND PROUD OF IT wrote on April 24, 2007 2:15 PM:"TOO MUCH OF A LADY TO JOKE ABOUT SEXUAL ACTS I NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED AND WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT, BUT FOR >>>>>> and >>>>. Would not even consider being NOONE'S sexual second. THAT IS DISGUSTING. One pair of boots for sale, broker, or borrow. Knee pads will probably go on sale soon because of soccer season. Short on cash, I'm certain some WORTHY charity will assist in arranging a fund-raiser!"
Are you kidding wrote on April 24, 2007 12:05 PM:"You people must be out of your mind, she went to the Sandusky Register with a picture of herself with this child, put it there for everyone who reads the paper to see, with the captioning "Thanks you for letting us be there for the Blessed Event". She took this child without the consent of his mother, drove him around town and showed people "HER" child, she was wrong and needs to be procuted for her actions for that. But I do beleive that she did have an affair with numerous police officers and public officials, women never lie about who they had sex with, and these men better hope that what they did with her never comes back to haunt them..."
Finally- someone who gets it wrote on April 24, 2007 11:47 AM:"Bravo to you Cobbwebb, though I strongly disagree with your assessment of Mr Baxter. The grand jury problems exist because of the prosecutor's misuse of the grand jury. Also, if Mr. Baxter had any kind of relationship with this defendant he was required to disqualify himself and his office. Certainly he has no problem calling in a special prosecutor for trivial conflicts, and an allegation that then then married county prosecutor had an adulterous releationship with this defendant as reported by the Sandusky Register last August isn't trivial.To the rest of you...where's the proof she did any of the acts with the required intent? Remember it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of your peers and the detective in the case is already being sued in federal court for major misconduct and dereliction due her failure to protect a 15 year old girl raped by a fellow Sandusky Officer. In fact Prosowski begged this same judge to give James Fitzpatrick probation for raping a 15 year old girl.Finally, there are protections built into our system that are supposed to be honored to prevent coerced pleas and waiver of rights. Those protections are a competent defense lawyer and a fair and impartial judge. The judge failed miserably in his role as "neutral and detached" magistrate required by due process and the defense attorney proved he was ineffective when he expressed surprise at her request to withdraw her plea so she could have a public trial by her peers."
Cobbwebb wrote on April 24, 2007 11:09 AM:"This is not about the defendant, as much as it is about "all" defendants facing a prison sentence. There is no doubt, even after the judge vehemently denied he never told anyone that the defendant would face a much longer sentence if she went to trial, that what he did say, and which was recorded, amounts to the same thing. Poor advice from defense counsel (maybe), then counseling by family, this woman changed her mind and has the legal right to withdraw her guilty plea "anytime prior to sentencing." That's what the Ohio Supreme Court says and the U.S. Supreme Court. Forget the codes and case law, THEY ARE REAL AND EXIST AND THE COURT AND LAWYERS KNOW THIS. When a defendant tells a judge she wants to change her plea, the higher courts mandate that, if prior to the actual act of sentencing, the judge should halt the proceedings and "at the least" find out "why" and find out in a non-adversarial manner. In this case, the court's response was that, basically, "we had all agreed to a guilty plea, even after he (the judge) was opposed to a guilty plea." [Did I get that right?] If the court felt a guilty plea in the beginning was not the right way to go, why coldn't he change his mind too? Then, people, please consider, even though this was an obvious felonious act, that her defense attorney could not remotely justify a "not guilty plea."But, the judge is right in one respect, he can do whatever he wants. That's why we have "Courts of Appeal." But what public defender is going to appeal? The public defender's office is short handed, has hundreds of on-going cases, fights with local government for funding, while "funding" is quite ample for the side of law and of the prosecution. Not in this case, but there are times when indigent people are falsely accused, and the message to them, which is true, "if you plead not guilty, the prosecution will take this to the always vulnerable grand jury and have you charged with a dozen offenses and, if found guilty, would face xxx number of years in prison. However, if you plead guilty to these three lesser charges, probably probation, or one year at the most." Someone at The Register should contact the state office which provides the personal, large group, legal ramifications information to new felons sent to prison. Ask this agency what percentage of new inmates "had" to accept a plea bargain. Actually, The Register archives would show, for persons arrested, "original charges from a grand jury," VS. the "plea-bargain charges designed only by the prosecution." Ask grand jury members sometime how they feel about the time and effort they spend in coming to serious conclusions, only to "read" about drastically reduced charges in a plea bargain. The newspaper always prints what sentence, and fine, the defendant is facing "before" plea-bargaining. Then, how really bad was that defendant when the prosecution offers up a sentence, of say, one year instead of five?" and a "possible fine" of $1,000 instead of $10,000? The dollar amount, however, is actually tied to the time of confinement. The grand jury system in Erie County has been abused for years. Prosecutors need not take every case to a grand jury, only those where the case against a person is marginal, and need that support. Other Ohio Counties may use a grand jury two or three times a year. The Register falls into an awkward, compromised journalistic ethics situation by allowing itself to be used as the messenger of a prosecutor, once he/she has "used" the grand jury.However, per other writers' observations, I will say that Kevin Baxter is a fine man, a great prosecuting attorney. He's on that elected official pedestal which routinely is attacked, kind've like what I've done here today. But the good he has done for Erie County over the years far outweighs my criticism. Bye"
I care! Its all relevant. wrote on April 24, 2007 11:04 AM:"I wasn't refering to Kevin in my comment. However, I have some boots for sale, broker, or borrow. And does anyone in the prosecutor's office need knee pads? I hear reciprocity is a popular thing in the legal profession. "
A wrote on April 24, 2007 10:59 AM:"i think the whole thing is crazie . she took a babie could of killed the mother of the child . thank god the childs mother did not have a bad reaction to what ever she gave her .. this whole thing is about her stilling a child could of killed someone not who , when shr was dateing someone .. everytime someone is charged with crimes they always have a excuse of why ..just for someone to feel sorry for them NO grow up you did it because you are dumb and want someone to feel sorry for you ... she should actuly have been given longer , should be banded from any child ............."
GOOD! wrote on April 24, 2007 10:32 AM:"well good, the white trash psychotic tramp got what she deserves! good ridance to bad rubbish, she deserves to be behind bars for what she has done!!!!!!"
by your side wrote on April 24, 2007 9:19 AM:"i have been long time friends with beth. if this was yourself, how many people would be there for you for support? also, would you be "strong" enough to handle this situation? as far as the comments that point to her "relationships"... if people only knew what a downward spiral effect this has had. i recall a uniformed employee for the city that had a "so-called" relationship w/ beth. he was fully aware of her age @ the time. which was not legal. so before we all jump the gun... lets stop and look at where the "victimizing" began. sometimes we look for love and security in the wrong areas. and yet while we look, there is always somebody out there willing to take advantage of that. while being incarserated beth has had time to put things into perspective as far as the choices that she has made and the people that she trusted. God knows there are choices we all have made in our lives~ that we wish we could of done differently. but it is so easy to get "caught up" in the moment of things. i pray for all that are involved,including ms.kaczor& her family. i hope we can all remember this old saying..."when pointing your finger,don't forget about the three that are pointing back at you." stay strong poodie, for your inner strength will only grow."
WHO REALLY CARES? wrote on April 24, 2007 8:50 AM:"Who cares if she did or did not date Kevin Baxter?? THat is totally irrelevant to the fact that she took a baby and drugged the mother!!"
Wondering wrote on April 24, 2007 8:37 AM:"Did she actually DATE Kevin or did she see him at Friday's and have a drink with him? Does he admit to having a relationship of ANY nature? "
Sandusky Records Check wrote on April 24, 2007 8:19 AM:"Not direct co-worker but his boss. In an article published in August 2006, the newspaper reported that the person Ohlemacher "dated" was Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter. Ohlemacher moved to disqualify the prosecutor's office because of the sexual relationship. "
oh brother wrote on April 24, 2007 8:13 AM:"Who did she NOT date? Obviously no relationship went further as any of her many "dates" did not stick. Most likely they found her to be less than an ideal."
I pray she isn't refering to dating Rubino's direct co-worker wrote on April 24, 2007 8:08 AM:"Ohlemacher said she did not understand why a county attorney, Rubino, was allowed to prosecute her after she had dated a county employee. "
Finally......... wrote on April 24, 2007 7:38 AM:"Finally this case is over. Is she going to serve the sentences AFTER completing the one she currently is serving? I see she had all of 2 supporters. I really feel bad for her mother. She did the best she could with an adult CHILD. She believed all of her stories from the get go."
This is cache, read story here
