1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

this whole deal is F'ed up, but in the end, the most horrible part about it is, there are 3 dead kids.

They're an afterthought at this point and that's disgusting.

16 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

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.

Barely jumped out of a window. She should have swan dove headfirst into the cement, but chose instead to carefully hang jump into the snow, like a teenager sneaking out at night. Fry her until her hair catches on fire.

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

They're an afterthought at this point and that's disgusting.

agreed and while i can understand the imprisonment vs mental health detention debate to a point, the focus should be all about what could've or couldn't have been done to prevent 3 kids from being murdered, not so much about poor lindsay.

She wouldn't be the first kid killer that got away with it

21 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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

My best friend's girlfriend has a stalker and he said "If they find my body in a ditch somewhere, make sure Keith Morrison does my episode of dateline".

12 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

She wouldn't be the first kid killer that got away with it

I still can't believe that Casey Anthony got off. After that one, nothing surprises me anymore.

21 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

agreed and while i can understand the imprisonment vs mental health detention debate to a point, the focus should be all about what could've or couldn't have been done to prevent 3 kids from being murdered, not so much about poor lindsay.

I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent this, but you have the absolute right way of looking at it. Prevention should be a focus, which makes this situation even worse. The fanfare towards her to the point where women are hugging her attorney and thanking him may have the opposite effect. Women go through stuff and hopefully there are discussions on how to help them, but she is not a celebrity.

1 hour ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

this whole deal is F'ed up, but in the end, the most horrible part about it is, there are 3 dead kids.

Yeah, that's why part of me has no interest in diving in to these kind of incidents. I watched a documentary on Susan Powell and once was enough, I try my best to steer clear of some of that stuff now.

22 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

She wouldn't be the first kid killer that got away with it

No. The "Zanny the Nanny" BS then "accidental drowning" has happened before. Those didn't have defendants elevated to celebrity status with lines of bats**t crazy women losing their minds outside the courthouse. We'll all move on in time and I doubt we'll think of this again until it happens again, but it's f'ed up.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

If that juror is as stubborn as me, no chance.

I sure hope they are because the defense attorney stood up an hour ago and said he is violating their oath, lied, and is not applying the law to the facts and refuses to join the other 11 in returning a not guilty verdict. How that isn't open jury tampering is beyond me. With all the crazy women losing their minds and it going out on live TV that one person has to know his name will get out (especially after that other lunatic filmed them) and people will be coming for him. They will not let this go and will place all the blame on him.

I'm with you they would have to kick me off the jury before I'd change my vote, but he's going to face a lot of backlash and will probably have to move out of the state.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

I sure hope they are because the defense attorney stood up an hour ago and said he is violating their oath, lied, and is not applying the law to the facts and refuses to join the other 11 in returning a not guilty verdict. How that isn't open jury tampering is beyond me. With all the crazy women losing their minds and it going out on live TV that one person has to know his name will get out (especially after that other lunatic filmed them) and people will be coming for him. They will not let this go and will place all the blame on him.

I'm with you they would have to kick me off the jury before I'd change my vote, but he's going to face a lot of backlash and will probably have to move out of the state.

I'll contribute to his GoFundme

18 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

No. The "Zanny the Nanny" BS then "accidental drowning" has happened before. Those didn't have defendants elevated to celebrity status with lines of bats**t crazy women losing their minds outside the courthouse. We'll all move on in time and I doubt we'll think of this again until it happens again, but it's f'ed up.

Watch The Cult Behind The Killer: The Andrea Yates Story

Also The Trial of Louise Woodward

Welp. Mistrial

17 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Welp. Mistrial

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

WTF 🤣

I've seen this story pop up on social media and seeing different takes, user comments and reactions. I don't know all the details of the case, I don't follow these type of court cases or anything. But the public reaction to this one has been interesting. I've seen a lot of takes and reactions:

• A concerning amount of women are supporting her, refusing to believe a woman could kill her children. Many women are saying "it could have been me." There are women publicly admitting they have thought about killing their children. Imagine being their kids and seeing that on social media.

• It's raised concerns about women's inability to take accountability, and the double standard. I've seen people post examples of fathers who have killed their children and their mental illness wasn't an excuse, they were put in jail or mental hospital and the jury took only a couple hours to decide.

• On the other side, there are women who believe she's guilty, noting that many women have PPD and don't kill their children.

• Many women are also raising concerns that the mindset that a woman can't be held accountable for her actions because she was hormonal and had PPD sets feminism backwards, and be careful because that excuse can come back to hurt them. Does that mean women with PPD or who are hormonal should have their kids taken away from them?

• There's also people saying that some of the women who "stand with Lindsay" don't mean they condone the killing or think she's innocent, but rather they want to advocate for women's mental health and support for women with PPD. I don't think that message comes across when just outside the courthouse protesting. But could be a mix of people with views showing up who knows.

• It's raised a lot of questions and concerns about mental health, the amount of prescriptions she was given and the different doctors who prescribed them. I haven't followed the details, but people are questioning was she drug seeking, was it irresponsible of doctors to prescribe different things, was she not following instructions to take her meds, etc. Regardless of what's true and not, it raises awareness of mental health concerns and how they may learn from it going forward.

Sadly, the majority of the women who "stand with Lindsay" aren't mentioning at all the children who were killed.

It has also brought out a lot of crazy:

• I've seen people call out the "TikTok true crime detectives" - the stay at home Moms who watch true crime documentaries and think they know more than the officials in the investigation. People are picking apart minute things they see when watching the trial. On social media these women are saying she's innocent because of vibes, how her husband's face looks, grasping at straws to find details that could be a "twist." They're too used to watching Netflix docs that have surprise twists, they can't grasp that there isn't some twist.

• She did it and admitted it and the case is whether she should be in jail or mental institution, yet people are swearing Patrick must have done it and framed her. They say Patrick drugged her and brainwashed her.

• Some say because of her Astrology sign she must be innocent because a Gemini (or whatever she is) would never kill her cubs.

• There are stories of some men who have broken up with their girlfriends when they found out they support Lindsay.

I think there's a real increase in mental health issues, and for some reason it's almost always white privileged suburban women that are like this.

I think it’s a good point about normalizing the whole "women are hormonal and can go completely bat ish crazy at any time” narrative. It’s exactly why we don’t have a female president. I believe we won’t see a female president in my lifetime for this very reason. Like I said in the other thread, republicans could run Jarred from Subway against a woman and still win.

Hot Take - if the States want to be involved with pro-life choices, then should the State also be protective in cases of childbirth - an example may be: not releasing a newborn until the mother completes, and passes, a psychiatric evaluation?

(guess that was more of a question to elicit conversation, not really a Hot Take - but, whateves)

14 minutes ago, hey suess said:

Hot Take - if the States want to be involved with pro-life choices, then should the State also be protective in cases of childbirth - an example may be: not releasing a newborn until the mother completes, and passes, a psychiatric evaluation?

(guess that was more of a question to elicit conversation, not really a Hot Take - but, whateves)

Hard no. Circle of life.

🤣

19 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I think it’s a good point about normalizing the whole "women are hormonal and can go completely bat ish crazy at any time” narrative. It’s exactly why we don’t have a female president. I believe we won’t see a female president in my lifetime for this very reason. Like I said in the other thread, republicans could run Jarred from Subway against a woman and still win.

What did you think of Queen Elizabeth?

11-1 Not guilty. Judge declares a mistrial. Juror refused to apply reasonable doubt standard.

Fwiw they aren't trying to argue the guy should be tossed because he's voting guilty. They're arguing that he has stated that he has "reasonable doubt" and is voting guilty anyway.

What a clusterF. Predictable, but still a clusterF.

These posts are all over and hint at what G said. Can't have it both ways.

3 hours ago, Paul852 said:

Problem with that is every murderer can claim "mental illness". When does the accountability start?

Most murderers aren't given 13 separate psychiatric medications in the months leading up to the event dude. It's ok to think she's probably guilty but this is not a good faith comparison.