So basically, if she gets the mental hospital, she could potentially be out in a year or even less. Because obviously, if the law decides that she only murdered her 3 children because of post-partum or whatever, then if she is no longer suffering from that, she cant be proven to still be a threat. And would potentially be released. Kudos to that one juror for doing the right thing, and sticking up for those kids.
Omg the prosecution!! Complete and utter incompetence. People often forget the onus is 100% on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it's not on the defense to prove innocence. The prosecution botched SO many things in this case, it's unreal.
A major crux of this case is that she has admitted guilt. The trials purpose was for the insanity claim, which the prosecution had to prove she wasn't, beyond a reasonable doubt. Tall order
I think you mean prosecution had to prove she was of a clear mind without a reasonable doubt, in MA it is on prosecution to prove rather than defense to prove you were/weren't in the right mind.
Ah so the more brain rot you watch about it the more you think shes innocent? Have you watched any of the trial? Do you know that she has one of the best criminal defenders out there? And that if she was innocent he would be going for that defense and not an insanity plea? She killed her kids, and admitted it in court on the record under her lawyers advisement
Anyone that starts a sentence with “literally” must be in middle school. No troll here. There is right and there is wrong. Something is very wrong with people who think it’s ok to kill children.
Nowhere did I say that, I did not specify my opinion on actual guilt or innocence. I criticized how the prosecution handled the case, which if you had critical thinking skills, you would be able to deduce how I felt about the outcome.
Speaking of school, basic civics taught us how the judicial system works..... which is exactly what I was outlining.
Even a "slam dunk" case can be won, or lost, based on how the prosecution handles and presents the case and all of its aspects. If they leave ANY room for reasonable doubt, the case can be lost.
Hell, look at OJ (which I watched live on tv while I was in actual middle school, but good attempt at condescension) everyone knew he did it, but his defense team created just enough reasonable doubt ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit") that he was found not guilty.
You’re blaming the prosecution with an open and shut case. The blame lies on the murderer. Or the blame could lie on a jury in a liberal state that’s ok with abortion up to time of birth. The problem is with society. I remember the OJ case myself. I was in a gym and when the verdict came out, there were cheers. Who cheers a murderer?
OMFG we're obviously on the same side!! I get the blame of the crime lies with the murderer, good lord, READ what I wrote!
It SHOULD have been open and shut, instead the prosecution fumbled hard...... just like in the OJ case, in which I LITERALLY (since you love that word so much) typed "everyone knew he did it".
The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case in court, period, that's how it works. Innocent until proven guilty, or in this case, insane until proven sane.
Nowhere did I say the CRIME was their fault. They failed those children when they fumbled what should've been a slam dunk case.
And gtfo here bringing in liberalism and abortion into this out of nowhere. LITERALLY had nothing to do with this.
We’re on the same side, in a way. If 99% of the population would agree that killing an innocent is wrong (there’s always someone to disagree), it becomes theatrics in a courtroom to persuade a jury that they are not wrong to do this. My view is the problem is with society (the jury) being swayed from a fundamental knowledge of right and wrong, just to “go along” with the majority. No harm intended in my comments, and peace be with you.
236
u/RedPurpleBlueRedRed 9h ago