Lindsay Clancy case is so polarizing bc both sides require u to totally ignore t
| Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | MISO HORNY | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | chilmata | 09/05/26 | | Jalapeno cheddar | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Jalapeno cheddar | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Ass Sunstein | 09/05/26 | | chilmata | 09/05/26 | | Debunked antisemitic trope | 09/05/26 | | Richard Ames | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jalapeno cheddar | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Gay Grandpa | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Gay Grandpa | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/06/26 | | The Penis | 09/06/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/06/26 | | The Penis | 09/06/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/06/26 | | The Penis | 09/06/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/07/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/07/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/07/26 | | The Penis | 09/07/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | the laziest nigger alive | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | average/ordinary/typical citizen/person | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Bronus Swagner | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | lsd | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | the laziest nigger alive | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,, | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/05/26 | | Bronus Swagner | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Bronus Swagner | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | faggot account | 09/04/26 | | race baiter ginsburg | 09/05/26 | | 6.5 Screed Moar | 09/04/26 | | peeface | 09/04/26 | | Consuela | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,. | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | The Penis | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle | 09/04/26 | | UhOh | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | UhOh | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | Richard Ames | 09/05/26 | | cosmic penis | 09/05/26 | | Chimp Fatigue | 09/05/26 | | UhOh | 09/05/26 | | Here's why | 09/05/26 | | Debunked antisemitic trope | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | Debunked antisemitic trope | 09/05/26 | | '"'""'"'"' | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | industrial revolutions have consequences | 09/05/26 | | Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 | | '"'""'"'"' | 09/05/26 | | .,.,...,.,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,...,:,.,.:.:.,:.::.,. | 09/05/26 | | the laziest nigger alive | 09/05/26 | | .,.,...,.,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,...,:,.,.:.:.,:.::.,. | 09/05/26 | | thinkin' about asians | 09/05/26 | | I was Robbed | 09/05/26 | | The Penis | 09/05/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 8:52 PM Author: $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (gunneratttt)
Everything is this case showing insanity could be applied to your average buckwild teen. Hormones going crazy, erratic behavior. And on top of that they have the added behavioral issues/trauma from bad environment and lack of adequate care
A dindu goes berserk in a crowded public place and starts shooting over scuffed shoes. His medical record will surely show a history of psychiatric problems and inadequate care from an overburded system. Is he not criminally responsible?
If Clancy isn't criminally responsible then 90% of the incarcerated people in Mass aren't responsible either.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116691) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 9:11 PM Author: Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually (Prestige Feuds)
The dindu was nuts from birth and has a wrap sheet the length of a phone book.
To cite Reddington's closing argument, how did we go from this to this? Wherein holds up a photo of the happy family and then holds up a photo of the crime scene.
What makes Lindsay sympathetic as a defendant is that by all accounts and through a mountain of testimony, she was a nice normal person beloved by everyone around her. The dindu with mental illness has been bashing people's heads in since elementary school. Lindsay wasn't. She was a totally normal person and loving mother who went through a massive personality change having to do with the realignment of neurochemicals in the postpartum period and their interaction with the prescriptions such as giving a bipolar person SSRIs that specifically exacerbated her condition.
If Judge Judy snapped at her advanced age and went on a killing spree no one would think she was herself. No one would think well this model citizen with a lifetime of public service would just turn on a dime and become somebody else. Turns out that's what happened with Lindsay. It wasn't necessarily a decision process that was all thought out and she knew what she was doing. The argument is that she had a delusional, psychotic break with reality from the person she was before, there were no warning signs, she was commendable her whole life up to a point where the chemical balance went off the rails. That's the difference.
Believe whatever you want to believe but the defense argument resonates with 50-75% of people who learn about the trial. She still might be guilty but I don't think the next jury, or any jury, will throw out the defense argument completely. It's strong because it's strong.
Every defendant who can invoke the insanity plea, does. Most do not get 11/12 jurors to buy it. I encourage you to look into the evidence.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116711) |
 |
Date: September 6th, 2026 1:45 AM Author: The Penis
The conversation is still going over your head or you are being deliberately obtuse. Noone said anything about different evidence, different cases, different laws, different worlds or any of that. The point is whether you are willing to apply whatever idiotic principle you think lets this bitch off to other cases, or whether your only real reason is that she just "feels" like a sympathetic character to you, and you want to simp to her for being a woman. But fine let's put that aside.
Let's talk about the actual evidence. The question is about whether, because of a mental disease or defect that she lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing or to conform her conduct to law. The doctors actually treating her closest in time repeatedly observed depression and anxiety but no psychosis. McLean discharged her as a low safety risk without psychotic features. Her treating psychiatrist saw her the day before the killings. She denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and the psychiatrist observed no psychosis or mania.
Then look at the conduct immediately surrounding the killings. She searched the restaurant, checked the drive time on Apple Maps, called the pharmacy, arranged the takeout, and sent her husband on two errands, creating a period when she would be alone with the children. She then killed three children sequentially.
She had also previously concealed thoughts of harming the children from medical providers because she was afraid they would be taken away. Her own defense expert acknowledged that. That is evidence that she understood the significance and wrongfulness of those thoughts and rationally anticipated their consequences.
And the alleged command hallucination, which was the central and most important evidence for NGRI, appeared after the fact. She never reported an external voice to her treating providers before the killings. Her later accounts differed about when it began, and the prosecution expert testified that the claimed pattern of one continuous voice appearing during this episode and then disappearing was atypical.
She obviously made up the psychosis shit, but even if she were psychotic it still wouldn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she appreciated the wrongfulness and that she wasn't forced by her symptoms and the evidence shows both of those. You claim there was a ton of exculpatory evidence, but I didn't see shit. The only evidence there was is pointing toward the fact that she understood what she was doing and could have resisted and done otherwise, even if she did have psychosis (she most definitely is making it up).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50118617) |
 |
Date: September 6th, 2026 10:18 AM Author: Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually (Prestige Feuds)
These are good points overall. I think the worst witness for the defense was the chaplain. You could tell this woman was a mindless do-gooder who was going to say anything she could to support Lindsay. Dr. Zeizel was also very questionable. I don't dispute the holes in the defense theory. It requires the jury to rely heavily on Dr. Resnick who is the leader in the field. But it's obviously all conjecture.
I think she was nuts, I think she had totally lost the plot mentally. I think she was given horrible psychiatric care. She was definitely hiding the severity of her symptoms from the shrinks but not from her husband and mother. They definitely should have had her committed. We all know Patrick is a complete pussy.
I definitely could have been convinced of manslaughter or murder 2. I don't believe she entirely knew what she was doing was wrong. You poked someone good holes in the defense case but it you applied yourself in equal measure at poking holes in the prosecution case it falls apart too. About 2/3rds of what the state said in opening was completely disproven, hence reasonable doubt. I think retrial is fair at this point. The state should get one more bite at the apple. As many have pointed out they need to start the next trial with their closing from this one. They started weak and finished strong. They need to start over from the end and build that case. They had a really bad opening. So it would be interesting to see if the points you're making come out earlier in the trial and not at the very end.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50118823) |
 |
Date: September 6th, 2026 2:07 PM Author: The Penis
You seem to be making a really airy philosophical type argument where you just are weighing both sides equally and then withholding judgment as some epistemic exercise because "well we can't really know which is right and both sides make good cases and we need to give the benefit here to the defense since it says reasonable doubt", rather than weighing the actual evidence and making a determinate judgement based on applying the principles properly. Your argument is entirely philosophical, basically about "what reasonable doubt should mean" once you really give consideration to both cases. The problem is that even if you grant every single point that the prosecution makes, it still makes her guilty under the Massachusetts standard.
Massachusetts actually sets a demanding causal test. A mental disease or defect must cause the person to lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of the act, or to conform her conduct to the law. The two capacities are alternatives, so she does not have to lack both. And “appreciate” means a meaningful understanding of the legal or moral significance, rather than merely being able to state abstractly that murder is illegal.
If you are trying to argue that the command hallucination made her unable to resist (again we are granting here she actually had a command hallucination) that is a much weaker argument than “a psychotic delusion made her unable to appreciate wrongfulness.” If someone hears “kill them” from a voice and proceeds to kill them, the hallucination explains the presence of a motive or pressure, but does not by itself establish incapacity. Ordinary people also experience extraordinarily strong motives, emotions, threats, addictions, compulsions, and impulses while remaining legally responsible. And that was part of gunnernattt's earlier point about "who else would you have to let off if you apply this same principle", without having to have gone that deep into it. The point is that people are really strongly compelled to commit murder for various reasons that are arguably much stronger and more difficult to resist than what a "command hallucination" might be, and we never let them off. If “unable to resist” means literally that no psychologically possible exercise of agency could have produced resistance, then I am not sure forensic psychiatry can establish that proposition with anything approaching ordinary evidentiary standards. We cannot rerun the person under identical internal conditions while changing only the decision. So that prong is off the table. It's a losing argument if you look at it objectively.
I'll be short with the wrongfulness prong, even though I know I said that was the stronger possibility, I just am sick of writing. It basically goes like this: the defense has evidence that her reasons were psychotically distorted, but that is different from evidence that she could not appreciate wrongfulness. Hearing a command or believing the children were “better off” dead can explain why she killed them while still being fully compatible with knowing that killing them was morally and legally wrong. There is a missing bridge from the idea that she had delusional reasons for doing it, and that she couldn't meaningfully understand that doing it was wrong.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50119139) |
 |
Date: September 7th, 2026 1:36 AM Author: Jennifer Siebel did Harvey Weinstein consensually (Prestige Feuds)
I've been mulling this word salad seemingly for weeks trying to grasp and the kernel. It sounds like you don't believe she had a command hallucination and even if she did that alone doesn't justify killing her kids. Ok great.
You still don't seem like you've gone through the entirety of the defense case which really began during the prosecution when defense counsel began poking holes in it. Your zeroing in on one aspect of the psychiatric expert testimony. Yes it's important but it's within a much larger context.
You can downplay the defense case all you want or accuse me of being overly impartial or whatever you were getting at. But there's a reason 11/12 voted NGRI. The defense case was compelling and for more reasons than Dr. Zeizel and Dr. Resnick. You're entitled to believe she knew the wrongfulness of her actions. Whatever. A juror may consider whatever testimony they want. Defendants plead insanity all the time. You're not on to some super secret reasoning no one's thought of what if all defendants are crazy. Any that can, do we've been over this.
At any rate lots of people think Lindsay is guilty. Even more people don't. You're in the minority opinion of every poll that's ever been done on this. And that's fine. You're just a guy on the internet, I'm just a guy on the internet. But I'm telling you a lot of legal analysts and pundits who followed the trial believed that NGRI acquittal was the most likely outcome if not hung. And they came to that conclude based on the facts and evidence in the trial.
I hate to say it but you don't sound like someone who actually watched the trial. You sound like you read a blog with some talking points. I've admitted you do make some good points about holes in the defense case but you haven't looked into the holes in the prosecution case at all. You accuse me of being overly impartial. Ok let's all just take the view that she's a bad evil woman and we'll fill in the facts from there. You're not starting at the starting point you're just either looking at one aspect of a 7 week trial under a microscope or you're making bold claims about a trial you only seem to know half of. Tun Sie was sie wollen. I'll be happy to address any plot holes in the defense case but you really should be more prepared to address the holes in the state's case but you'd have to actually start from the beginning with an open mind to both sides before you get so ultra specific. It's totally OK if you think the whole trial boils down to the command hallucination testimony. But different jurors have different experiences. Everyone brings a different point of view to that jury room.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50120133) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 10:43 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
I just looked this up today. The burden shift in most states is exactly like that but in MA isn't like that so the prosecution was on the hook to prove that she was sufficiently sane (which, pardon the pun, is insane).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116855) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 11:06 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
So I was arguing with my wife and she was saying "but what about reasonable doubt???" I didn't want to say something wrong but I knew that insanity defense was a classic affirmative defense with burden shifting, but asking Claude I was immediately corrected that MA is an exception. I don't think they should get rid of it but it definitely should have a very high burden.
In any event, when I found out the MA legal position I realized why the prosecution was fucked from day 1.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116895) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 11:15 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
Based on what I saw the prosecution seemed to argue like there was burden shifting instead of deliberately and methodically demonstrating that she a) understood her actions and b) was not compelled to perform them.
This is also likely what the defense attorney was arguing during deliberations on the 1 holdout juror not "following the jury instructions."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116923) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 10:45 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
If this was Texas or Florida? Sure.
In Massachusetts? Wouldn't bet on it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116860) |
Date: September 4th, 2026 9:08 PM
Author: ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,
What is the point of the trial?
Just lock her up in a mental health jail for life. Who cares about the semantics this is hte obvious outcome.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116707) |
Date: September 4th, 2026 9:45 PM Author: peeface
the problem is, we know women.
hopped up on meds? unable to cope with day to day life?
that is all of them.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116779) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 10:54 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
The real problem is that this shit absolutely impacts cultural beliefs. There's already a copycat (Corie Walsh in Frankfort, KY) who murdered her 2 year old. There will be others. If burning shitbag mothers who think murdering their kids is cool in public with their screams streamed in 4k prevents this shit then I'm good with it. That remains true if they claim a voice in their heads tell them to do it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116876) |
Date: September 4th, 2026 10:50 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
She was crazy but she absolutely knew that a) she was killing her own kids and b) that doing so was wrong. While a voice "told her to do it" I don't see any argument that she was unable to resist the voice, nor was there any prior history of her doing other shit "just because the voice told me I had to."
Honestly, if she were in a normal red state without the dumbfuck lack of burden shifting for insanity defenses that MA has I think she would 100% fry.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116866) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 10:53 PM Author: Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle (πΊπΈ π΅π±)
I just honestly do not think she should be called a murderer because obviously she was not even acting like herself when it happened and she said she heard a man's voice telling her to do it, and since her husband is the main man in her life then I feel like that has to mean something even if people say it does not make sense, because why would her brain choose a male voice unless some man had put all that fear and pressure into her in the first place, and everyone keeps acting like she just woke up one day and decided to kill her own children for no reason when clearly there was a voice and voices do not just come from nowhere, they come from things people have said to you and ways people have treated you and probably from being controlled for years without anyone noticing, so really her husband should have known what was happening and stopped it because that is literally what husbands are supposed to do, they are supposed to protect their family and pay attention when their wife is falling apart, and if he left her alone or ignored warning signs or made her feel trapped then how is it fair that she gets blamed for everything while he gets to stand there acting shocked, because maybe she technically used her own hands but mentally it was like someone else was using them, and if the voice sounded like a man then I just feel like the responsibility has to go back to the man who had the most influence over her, which was obviously her husband, and people can say that is not how evidence works but sometimes feelings are evidence too because you can tell when something deeper was going on, and no normal mother would ever do that unless she was being pushed by some outside force, so calling her evil is just lazy when the real question is what her husband did or did not do that made her hear that voice, and honestly if he had been a better husband then none of it probably would have happened, so it seems completely wrong to say she is guilty of murder when she was basically another victim of the same man's voice.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116869) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 10:55 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
... but omg they burned her alive and she screamed and it was scary so I guess I won't kill my kids like omg
^ the correct ending.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116877) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 11:04 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
Well, if you've ever known serious schizophrenics and other nutjobs there is a simple answer to that. They have long histories of doing dangerous, scary shit that they legit have no control over and that often make no sense. They attack the principal at a local school because he molested her when she was a kid except she never went to the school and never met him. They attack random grocery store clerks because they're really hitmen hired to assassinate them.
They don't just go from "I'm on some pills because I'm depressed" to "I'm killing my kids."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116891) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 11:12 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116912) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 11:17 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
As a policy matter this makes the most sense.
As a legal matter, the fact that it isn't in the DSM makes it hard to argue as a legit mental illness in the first place.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116926) |
 |
Date: September 4th, 2026 11:19 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,...,:,...:..:.,:.::,.
They should have.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50116935) |
 |
Date: September 5th, 2026 4:47 PM
Author: .,.,...,.,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,...,:,.,.:.:.,:.::.,.
lol
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50117934) |
Date: September 5th, 2026 4:00 PM
Author: .,.,...,.,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,...,:,.,.:.:.,:.::.,.
Why do I even need to pick sides on some random criminal case im not a juror on. America is so gay
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2...id..#50117856) |
|
|