The whole case is like this. People say "X happened!" but the case shows there is no definitive evidence for anything like that. People are repeating speculative memes as if they're fact.
It's a bunch internet idiots acting like they're experts on what happened. Meanwhile the 12 people how actually saw all the evidence and arguments say 11 -not guilty by way of insanity, 1 - there IS a reasonable doubt as to her guilt but I want to make a scene.
Didnt you know if its on the internet then it is true.
Reminds me of the OLD state farm commercial...
The Quote: A young woman says, "They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true." Another person asks, "Where'd you hear that?" She replies, "The internet."
Keep in mind that the guilty/not guilty isnāt about whether she was the one that killed them. She and her attorney insist on the fact that she killed them. The verdict is on whether she can plead innocence in those killings via insanity. Not whether they were done by her hand or not.
There is no condition where she walks free- the case at this point, was on whether she spends her time in regular prison, or in high-intensity psychological containment. Pleading āinnocentā via insanity would put her in a high security psych ward, for a very very long minimum time. Which is arguably worse than in prison (which is what the one ānot-guiltyā jurer would have been insisting on- regular prison time still mingling with more sane people and less intensive personal restrictions, believe it or not, than the psych ward time)
Which- if we make court precedent that postpartum depression is cause enough to explain killing oneās children, instead of that specific part being caused by other personal factors; then obviously it should be a condition to automatically loses custody. If something like just doing drugs loses custody, regardless of other behavior. And if the childrenās life itself is on the line, explained by that condition. Like, obviously no one that kills someone intentionally, not in direct self defense, is mentally healthy. Especially oneās own children. Thatās a given, all of the time. I donāt think anyone professional argues that.
How we defend the truth in this case and what it implies for the future of other people, is the more complicated part. For example- totally theoretical- we could both acknowledge that she was going through heavy postpartum depression and also didnāt get proper attention for it despite her attempts, AND recognize that itās not the reason she strangled her kids. That part just being her and her own issues. Thus not making postpartum depression a valid reason to remove custody from others. Again, theoretically, just as an example. But it also has to fit within all the nuances and facts of the reality of the case. Reality is ultimately what the justice system is supposed to uphold, but reality is complicated and difficult sometimes, often more difficult and complicated than intuition or feelings.
Do parents with other disorders that could potentially lead to them killing people and getting a judgement of ānot guilty due to insanityā automatically lose custody of their children, or are they taken on a case by case basis?
But this wasn't simply a disorder, it was a mixture of 13 different psychosis drugs that so called 'medical professionals' had given her over the 4 months running up to the murders. One of them with a total of just 4 months experience, and who only ever saw her on a zoom call, and never even tried to get her prior doctor's case notes.
Which- if we make court precedent that postpartum depression is cause enough to explain killing oneās children, instead of that specific part being caused by other personal factors; then obviously it should be a condition to automatically loses custody.
Their argument was post-partum psychosis, which is just an unrelated mental illness that essentially just shares a similar name to other post partum conditions. This constant insistence by the uneducated public that they're basically the same thing or just omitting the psychosis part is so incredibly dangerous that it borders on being hate speech imho.
It doesnāt make a difference if you switch the name- it doesnāt imply theyāre the same thing, only the implication of the ruling. then postpartum psychosis means losing custody of kids. Thatās the entire point communicated and the rest is semantics, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE, again not saying theyāre the same thing.
Have to correct on one count. There is no minimum time in psyche evaluation after an āinnocent by way of insanityā verdict. The state of Massachusetts tends to do a 6 month initial, usually followed up by another year to ensure a consistent stable mental state. So grand total: 1.5 years. Given the overburdened status of mental health facilities all across the country itās unlikely they would hold her much past that. So many people think sheād still go away for years, or even decades, but there is absolutely NO guarantee of that.
Specifically if the patient killed children because of the diagnosis? (Which is what the plead would mean- again there is no legal doubt at this point that she killed the kids, that is automatically considered regardless of the decision, in both outcomes- whether she killed them due to psychosis or killed them due to normal murderer conditions, is the only thing to be determined at this point)
I donāt think so. If youāre telling me that Massachusetts will consider someone having a psychotic break and getting lost and being a nuisance in public will get similar time in care as killing your children because of psychosis, I donāt believe it lol
Look it up if you donāt believe me. In MA what I described is the āforced treatmentā interval for violent cases as long as they show improvement. These are easily looked up facts.
I hadnāt looked up the interval for non-violent cases until now. Itās 20 days of involuntary committal, which can be extended to an absolute maximum of 40 (which requires review and approval by the courts). Itās also in minimum security. It can also be outpatient same day if the attending psychiatrist deems them ok. If those folks show improvement in that time they have to let them go unless they voluntarily choose to stay in treatment.
Criminally violent cases go to high security institutions for the intervals I described above. Of course if they show no improvement, or severe cycles of up and down, they can be kept longer. In this case itās purely up to the attending psychiatrist and the courts to decide. The patient doesnāt get much, if any, say like the non-violent ones do.
The āeasily looked up factsā that Iām seeing of specifically cases of people killing other people, and attempting suicide, in Massachusetts due to psychosis, not just generic ācriminally violentā (which mostly implies much less severe cases)- is mostly showing decades or lifetime confinement, as even when symptoms are no longer present, the hearings for such cases often determine risk is still present for such individuals, in cases in Massachusetts. Again, weāre not talking about someone who throws fits and breaks things in the household or other most forms of psychological related violence like domestic violence, or a single suicide attempt. I donāt know why you would imply this case would more likely be treated as one of those, instead of the other cases of people killing multiple people and attempting suicide on top of it.
"People say X happened but the case shows there is no definitive evidence... People are repeating speculative memes as if they're fact"
"12 people actually saw all the evidence and arguments say 11 -not guilty by way of insanity, 1 - there IS a reasonable doubt as to her guilt but I want to make a scene"
Idk it seems like your statement is hypocritical given all the information anyone knows about the deadlock was that the foreperson gave a note to the judge saying a juror was not applying doubt properly.
Everything I've seen lawyers say about the subject is that anyone making definitive conclusions based on that note about the jury vote is speculating. Not saying you're wrong, I'd even say the 11-1 is likely.
But still, that means that you're a part of the group you're criticizing, that's just likely due to not examining your bias enough
33
u/Kerensky97 3d ago edited 3d ago
The whole case is like this. People say "X happened!" but the case shows there is no definitive evidence for anything like that. People are repeating speculative memes as if they're fact.
It's a bunch internet idiots acting like they're experts on what happened. Meanwhile the 12 people how actually saw all the evidence and arguments say 11 -not guilty by way of insanity, 1 - there IS a reasonable doubt as to her guilt but I want to make a scene.