White male privilege exposed!

2 hours ago, Paul852 said:

100%. Obviously the argument is whether she was in psychosis and fully appreciated right from wrong. If I was on the jury, sending her husband out to a restaurant further away (that they've never gotten take out from before) and on another errand and looking up how long it would take him screams premeditation. She knew what she was about to do was wrong and wanted him gone. The psychotic episode happening RIGHT after he left sure seems mighty coincidental, does it not?

In her mind she might have thought what she was doing was good but also might have known her husband might have objected to the murder. The psychosis could have made this possible in a crazy sort of a way.

1 hour ago, lynched1 said:

White male privilege exposed!

As to this, I think the bottom line is whether he appreciated what he was doing was wrong, even if what he thought he was doing wasn’t actually what he was doing… if that makes sense

Just now, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

As to this, I think the bottom line is whether he appreciated what he was doing was wrong, even if what he thought he was doing wasn’t actually what he was doing… if that makes sense

Consider killing an ant. Let’s say it’s a crime to kill an ant.

A man kills an ant believing it is Hitler. (Psychosis). This is not guilty by reason of insanity because in his mind he’s doing a good thing by killing Hitler.

A man kills an ant believing it is mother Theresa. This is guilty even though you have insanity because you knew it was a bad thing to kill mother Theresa.

4 hours ago, Paul852 said:

100%. Obviously the argument is whether she was in psychosis and fully appreciated right from wrong. If I was on the jury, sending her husband out to a restaurant further away (that they've never gotten take out from before) and on another errand and looking up how long it would take him screams premeditation. She knew what she was about to do was wrong and wanted him gone. The psychotic episode happening RIGHT after he left sure seems mighty coincidental, does it not?

Psychosis and mania doesn't make basic planning impossible though. Harder to make a coherent plan maybe (like maybe finding a better method of killing yourself?) but still. It just makes those plans and goals illogical.

Look I'm not saying this wasn't likely murder one. I just have a hard saying that there's no reasonable doubt that the post partum status and meds weren't the trigger. I think it's plausible. So I get the hesitation as a juror.

13 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Psychosis and mania doesn't make basic planning impossible though. Harder to make a coherent plan maybe (like maybe finding a better method of killing yourself?) but still. It just makes those plans and goals illogical.

Look I'm not saying this wasn't likely murder one. I just have a hard saying that there's no reasonable doubt that the post partum status and meds weren't the trigger. I think it's plausible. So I get the hesitation as a juror.

Problem is she claims the psychosis (or at least the auditory hallucination) didn't occur until after all the plans were made. It also doesn't help that she was Googling psychosis 5 days before her claimed first occurrence of psychosis.

59 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Problem is she claims the psychosis (or at least the auditory hallucination) didn't occur until after all the plans were made. It also doesn't help that she was Googling psychosis 5 days before her claimed first occurrence of psychosis.

You don't need hallucinations in order to have psychosis though. Just disordered illogical thinking. They can happen but it's not a diagnostic requirement. And googling diagnoses if you're worried you have a disease is pretty common. The googling stuff doesn't sway me one way or another. With that or the carotid artery search.

18 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

You don't need hallucinations in order to have psychosis though. Just disordered illogical thinking. They can happen but it's not a diagnostic requirement. And googling diagnoses if you're worried you have a disease is pretty common. The googling stuff doesn't sway me one way or another. With that or the carotid artery search.

How many coincidences does it take though? When it comes to 3 children being strangled to death I have my limits on how "reasonable" I can be,

so what’s the basis of the theory that the husband did it?

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

so what’s the basis of the theory that the husband did it?

"The only evidence we have is "Patrick said""

"He wanted to get rid of his family so he can live his new life"

"He gaslit her into believing she did it"

Along with nonsense about the timeline not making sense, his CVS bag being under the kid's dinner bowls, etc. Honestly, my brain is fried from reading their comments.

4 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

so what’s the basis of the theory that the husband did it?

The dude seems off. Got remarried within a few months and Fed off the Costa Rica like right after it all happened. But as far as actual evidence? Nothing tangible. Just weird timeline stuff.

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

The dude seems off. Got remarried within a few months and Fed off the Costa Rica like right after it all happened. But as far as actual evidence? Nothing tangible. Just weird timeline stuff.

He got remarried this year and started dating his current wife in 2024

2 hours ago, Paul852 said:

Problem is she claims the psychosis (or at least the auditory hallucination) didn't occur until after all the plans were made. It also doesn't help that she was Googling psychosis 5 days before her claimed first occurrence of psychosis.

Any woman that strangles her 3 kids to death in my book is psychotic. We can quibble about the words - but she is definitely off the deep end. That doesn't mean though she has a legal defense to the murders, although the standard and the procedure is much more pro-defendant than in other states. What's absolutely sickening is the cult like following she's getting of women in pink standing behind her.

I'd be curious to know to what degree this jury was sequestered.

Just now, Procus said:

What's absolutely sickening is the cult like following she's getting of women in pink standing behind her.

I wasn't following it as closely until I found out about the supporters and the attacks on her husband. It really bothered me.

15 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Psychosis and mania doesn't make basic planning impossible though. Harder to make a coherent plan maybe (like maybe finding a better method of killing yourself?) but still. It just makes those plans and goals illogical.

Look I'm not saying this wasn't likely murder one. I just have a hard saying that there's no reasonable doubt that the post partum status and meds weren't the trigger. I think it's plausible. So I get the hesitation as a juror.

If I was the state, I would be pouring through records from her time as an OB/GYN nurse.

Procus Esquire, famous for his hatred of cult-like followers of known criminals 😂

15 minutes ago, Procus said:

What's absolutely sickening is the cult like following she's getting of women in pink standing behind her.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

How many coincidences does it take though? When it comes to 3 children being strangled to death I have my limits on how "reasonable" I can be,

They aren't really coincidences. They're just being presented as proof of logical non-psychosis thinking and they're really not. You can form (**** awful despicable) plans while psychotic. You don't have to have audio hallucinations to be psychotic. Those things don't really move the needle enough for me to feel confident this was logical premeditated murder.

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

They aren't really coincidences. They're just being presented as proof of logical non-psychosis thinking and they're really not. You can form (**** awful despicable) plans while psychotic. You don't have to have audio hallucinations to be psychotic. Those things don't really move the needle enough for me to feel confident this was logical premeditated murder.

So you're NGRI?

I'm gonna need this in a dateline episode narrated by Keith Morrison before I can form any conclusions

43 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

So you're NGRI?

I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. I'll leave it at that.

Lots of murderers and serial killers are insane.

So we got to 13 votes with 11 guilty M1, 1 manslaughter and one NGRI. I guess we're hung too.

22 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Consider killing an ant. Let’s say it’s a crime to kill an ant.

A man kills an ant believing it is Hitler. (Psychosis). This is not guilty by reason of insanity because in his mind he’s doing a good thing by killing Hitler.

A man kills an ant believing it is mother Theresa. This is guilty even though you have insanity because you knew it was a bad thing to kill mother Theresa.

If in your mind you are doing the right thing then there should be no reason to send your husband far away for food. Forget the planning, research, and premeditation, that shows guilt/shame/acceptance of doing something wrong. She knew what she was doing was a bad thing and multiple doctors said they saw no evidence of psychosis or postpartum. She Googled, planned, and then strangled three innocent children until one's eyes reportedly popped out of their socket. She then tried to kill herself and jumped out a window. You don't do that if in your mind you did a good thing.

Nobody who takes a life in cold blood is sane. That's no excuse. Murder 1.