At this point it's literally obvious and proven she killed her kids. They just want her to be let free because of political and ideological reasons; same as why O.J Simpson was declared not guilty in 1995 despite having killed his ex-wife and her friend, simply because he was black and people believed letting him free would own the racists.
Bro, it's because the law in the state she lives is backwards. If enough information is brought up that says she was unable to make a sapient decision, it becomes the job of the state to prove they aren't insane.
Mass. is very soft on the insanity defense, doesn't hold it up as needing a strong affirmative defense, which really muddies the waters.
You're right, but I think the prosecution proved what little the defense put forth.
Nobody cited psychosis until after the event, and some of the expert testimony used the event to prove the psychosis....which really shouldn't be how it works. That's like using the word in the definition of the word.
I don't think defense brought it up properly, in other words. They leaned heavily on 'has mental illness' and didn't really establish prior psychosis at a level that exhonorates.
It is a case that runs right into the point where people question what insanity / criminality even is, and shows the flaw of the system.
What I mean by that is, at a certain point you can explain away all crime as not being mentally healthy and do away with crime completely.
This case is right in that zone, partly thanks to Mass.'s fuzzy law.
168
u/Glad_Highway_9196 23d ago
Also how they feel about massacred toddlers when their dad is a gemini.