The prosecution completely goofed in their opening statements and failed to prove several major pillars of their original case. I think it should have been bifurcated from the beginning. The prosecution only had two cudgels they wielded over and over. Cruelty and premeditation. They had no answers for her mental state. They got blown out by a lot of witness testimony. You're either mad as hell and ignored the evidence or if you paid attention to the trial, you know there's reasonable doubt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110253)

Be more specific.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110258)

She obviously premeditated sending Patrick out so he would be gone a while. But also Pat would randomly go skiing and leave her alone with the kids for the weekend. She could have easily done it then but she was probably too loopy to foresee the eventuality of her being alone with them.

You need to watch Dr. Reznik's testimony. This is the leader in the field of criminal psychiatry, so much so that the prosecution experts all cited his work. He's the GOAT at this shit. Believe him or not but he's the most prestigious expert in the field.

He talks extensively about psychosis and how it manifests. It's a difficult subject because little is known about it in general. But Reznik testified she had delusion beliefs that she could not unthink. She felt a powerful force overcome her that she needed to kill herself and that she had to protect the kids in Heaven before she could die.

Believe whatever you want but there's a lot of evidence that she was not in her right mind. Testimony about her beliefs include contradictions and falsehoods, but not about things not material to the crime. Instead, this can be taken as evidence that she was psychotic at the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110262)

She could have easily waited for his next ski trip but I believe she lacked the foresight for that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110276)

Above you claimed irresistible impulse. Asked to define something so nebulous and inscrutable you backed down behind a wall of text.

Fuck you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110266)

And yet, they did not. Not even one. Are you arguing for IAC? Is this grounds for appeal?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110284)

only reason why i think its ok for this case is becasue she lost her children + paraplegic if she didnt get paraplegic shes 100% cooked

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110285)

That wasn't in response to you...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110446)

she may be 'innocent' (by reason of insanity), but her conviction and hopeful eventual suicide are 'not a pain I would necessarily spare her.'

ring a bell?

if you want to turn the legal system into a theater of operations in your war of aggression against the male sex at large, turnabout is fair play.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110485)

i'll also add that i don't really care what happens to this lady because she killed her kids. maybe she was clinically insane but she can just die for all i give a fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110491)

The internet amps up these radical positions which eventually normalizes them, which often provokea reaction from the other side, leading to a vicious cycle. Libs see some people being misogynistic, so they anyone who disagrees a misogynist, which radicalizes more hinged guilymos, which radicalizes more hinged insanemos, and before you know it its retards scuffling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50110505)

However, I still believe there is reasonable doubt in the case that the Commonwealth presented. But I don't begrudge jurors who felt a different way.

Hung jury is understandable. I don't think you will ever get a unanimous verdict on this set of facts. Some of the facts of the case clearly go against the defendant.

To be clear, the right wing pundits I have heard have no knowledge of the trial, in the same way that Candace Owens has no knowledge of the Tyler Robinson trial. I am calling out pundits, not jurors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50111666)

Much closer cases have reached a verdict. This one is fairly simple and just boils down to the question of whether you think she was legally insane. Success rates of securing a verdict go up in a second trial as both sides hone in on their strategy. Guess we'll see, I think a lot will depend on what the jurors say about their deliberations. For example if it turns out there was only one holdout against guilty they're not offering her anything, if it's the opposite they may be more willing to negotiate a plea. I don't think there's any chance they drop charges on a triple homicide after all the work that's already been done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50111700)

I think the prosecution has more to gain on retrial than the defense but who knows.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2,5#50111726)