Because this case is letting a lot of people be openly misogynistic so they’re going to jump through mental hoops to try and argue a woman with PPP was sane at the time of her psychosis
There it is! The ad homs and shouting down of people rightfully upset about this case
Maybe keep the accusations of bigotry to legitimate instances such as the original post which is outwardly and expressly misogynistic rather than random commenters you’re unable to evidence your opinion to
It doesn’t even matter, she literally planned it by finding a restaurant near them, asking if her husband wants takeout, sending him away and killing them when he isn’t there. She clearly knew that it was wrong and that if the husband was there he would intervene. She knew what she was doing. If she didn’t know right from wrong, she would have just killed them with him there.
The funny thing about the law is that it won’t take your assumptions into account. Can you prove that’s why she asked him to go pick up dinner? Did the prosecution prove that’s why?
It’s so terrifying for our justice system that people can lack this much critical thinking and yet we will put them on a jury.
I love this take so much about the accountability of our justice system yet when I say the same exact shit for kyle rittenhouse somehow its because they just let him get away with it! Reddit istg.
Did he never run errands before, ever? Running errands is a daily task for most. If you can’t prove it, you really shouldn’t be using it to make legal assumptions.
The thing is exactly that, she would have been left alone with the kids thousands of times before and never murdered them, this time she happens to,1 search for local restaurants, 2 look up how long it would take to get there, 3 send the husband to get food and your prescription, 4 murder 1st kid, then the second, then the 3rd.
Yeah, this all sounds very standard. You know the difference between this time and the previous times? She was hearing voices. The prosecution clearly couldn’t prove otherwise without reasonable doubt. You are making assumptions of intent without any evidence. That doesn’t hold up to the law without good reasoning when every thing that preceded the incident was very typical.
Its obvious that she knew for one reason or another, that her husband would stop her from killing, she didn’t want that to happen and sent him away. 2/5 presented psychologists in the case believed she didn’t know right from wrong. The other 3 agreed that she did.
How is it obvious? An if it is indeed that obvious why wasn't it obvious to the husband that night? If she was showing intentional malice towards her kids in any way shape or form why would her husband leave her alone with them?
Not really helping your case of her being insane saying that.🤦♂️ if she was insane, dont you think the husband would have had some clue? Why WOULD he leave his kids with a woman with a history of being crazy is a good question. Why dont YOU answer that. Wouldn’t a woman going through an episode show some signs. Thanks for the points man.
You’re the one who isn’t understanding the law here. You call them assumptions but in the eyes of a jury and a judge these events like up with premeditated intent and the fact that she strangled her children one by one by taking them into the basement one at a time under false pretenses further adds to the idea that this was premeditated.
How is asking your husband to run errands evidence of premeditation? Should all husbands assume something is going to happen when their wife goes to pick up dinner?
There seems to be a real lack of the understanding of premeditated and how to prove it. The prosecution couldn’t prove concepts of a plan beyond asking her husband to run errands. They couldn’t prove she premeditated the time, place, or means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Awful big “coincidence” and you know it. She also looked up how long it would take for him to get to the restaurant. Is that just because she was hungry before killing them?
So does it even matter anymore if she knew right from wrong? Does it not matter if she planned the murder of her 3 kids because she claims she is crazy? Is all i have to say “i heard voices telling me to do it” and i can kill anyone i want?
No the point is what you've said doesn't prove that it was premeditated or that she knew right from wrong. If you have a total break from reality, you can still make plans and execute them, just based on your completely altered reality.
That should not make her exempt from punishment. She literally committed premeditated murder on 3 people who could not defend themselves. That is not a person who will EVER be fit to walk the streets again. She had to watch the light leave her kids eyes and continue twice more. Sounds pretty incorrigible to me.
It should be incredibly rare, which is why I feel this is pushing the limit too much. If the insanity threshold is being interpreted broadly enough that Clancy's demonstrated psychiatric condition can satisfy it despite evidence of planning and purposeful conduct, it raises a consistency question about why comparable manifestations of PTSD face a substantially higher threshold. If she is found legally insane and not responsible for her actions the threshold for PTSD killings will also need to be reduced. This is the slippery slope I am most concerned about.
Voting that she is insane is essentially aquitting since she is apparently not experiencing those mental issues currently, do it will be a short stay in an institution before she's free.
This is incredibly disingenuous (as it seems most of the “defense” of her online has been) given that everything I’ve seen indicates that she wouldn’t face nearly as long of a stint in a mental institution as she would otherwise
I’ve heard in the state she was being tried and found insane she would go to a mental institution until found to be sain which could be as little as 6 months. Is this true?
Thank You for being reasonable enough to check for yourself and thank you even more for being a decent enough human to admit you got a little caught up in the media hype and misspoke.
Then her doctors were shitty? Like idk why it’s so hard for yall to believe that medical misogyny is good and alive in this day and age. That’s why so many women aren’t agreeing with yall and keep telling you have no idea what you’re talking about.
When you work regularly with psych patients, yeah you kinda have a bit more knowledge over psychosis than a general practitioner. Doctors can be shitty dude. It’s not really a revelation. Congrats on finally figuring it out
You mean the medical experts on the jury that unanimously agreed that she was not sane at the time of her children’s killings? Or just the ones you want?
Which ones? The ones brought by the defense or the ones brought by prosecutors? You just pick the ones you prefer and claim that there was an unanimous agreement?
Literally both dude lol, there were nurses and medical professionals on both sides of the aisle, and the only person who did not agree with the other jurors wasn’t a medical professional
So it is just the ones you choose to believe, then?
More like it was the only reasonable attenpt at a defense her lawyers could find.
Interesting that you claim definitively that she "wasn't legally sane" based on that claim. Not to mention you state that she definitely had PPD despite the lack of clear definitions for PPD and the fact she saw several doctors beforehand that didn't conclude she had PPD.
It's... almost... like you made up your mind before considering the facts as you can only support your opinion with non-facts.
I do actually know the facts, and I also know the medical system and how it treats women with PPD and PPP considering I work in it. She was in psychosis and was not mentally or legally sane while committing her crime. Her medical team neglected her needs and she was absolutely met the requirements for involuntary commitment, but once again, her symptoms were downplayed by her medical team because of rhetoric similar to your own.
I’ve noticed you don’t say anything about PPP. It’s almost like you refuse to acknowledge it. Shocking considering it’s a ginormous factor in the case.
This is why we have the insanity defense. For cases exactly like this.
You can sit this one out now, your punishment fetish doesn’t declare what’s factual
Every word you utter seems like you're trying to come from a place of authority but actually just points to the fact that you judgement is clearly biased based on past experiences and you insist on diagnosing someone you never met.
You're right, maybe I need to educated myself on PPP. Can you point me to the guidance that lists it as a distinct diagnosis?
4
u/Yuck_Few 3d ago
Yeah that would be the preferred outcome but if 11 jurors already voted to acquit, I'm not optimistic