Prosecution claims it was a fake suicide attempt. They haven't established any motive in this case. Defendant was not having an affair, had no financial motive or life to move on to. For months leading up to the incident she told her husband she was fantasizing about killing herself and the kids. She went to see a half dozen shrinks who put her on Seroquel which made her worse. Dozens of pill bottles found for various psychoactive medications.

The plea is not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutor seems overzealous. There's also a civil suit filed by the husband against all her docs for wrongful death.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038128)

The claims the pros has made are beyond the pale. That she was manipulative (based on leaving the baby sister detailed notes on when to feed and put the kids to sleep?), that she "just didn't want to be a mom" (all the photos with the kids seem happy, she wasn't trying to go clubbing or anything crazy afterwards). The suicide attempt wasn't real (seemed like she did everything she could possibly to end her life and was saved by freezing temps).

Meanwhile we have months of her reaching out to medical professionals saying "I'm losing it, I need help" and they threw a ton of medication at her that made her worse and worse. Seems like the state is just trying to defend the medical profession at all costs. At one point she went to a women's home in Rhode Island for mothers with post partum and they rejected her because she "wasn't a good fit." Lmao wtf.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038157)

Ativan

Ambien

Klonopin

Valium

Prozac

Lamictal

Remeron

Trazadone

Yeah totally normal to be prescribed all this shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038192)

Nonetheless, it doesn't sound like insanity, not any more than every mom who kills her kids is insane based on that alone. She knew what she was doing. She knew it was wrong. Therefore, she's not insane. The suicide attempt undermines the insanity defense, if anything.

Also, based on the above posts about the prosecution trying to say the docs were good: it sounds like they're taking the wrong approach and may fumble the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038239)

Even if she's guilty, she's beating the charges the state laid out in their theory. Namely that she was a pill popping manipulator who wanted the easy way out and faked her suicide attempt. Literally none of that is true.

The only argument for criminal responsibility is that she did it premeditated. She googled how to kill, sent her husband out of the house (even though she had other previous chances like two days he was out of town and would invariably have had more). So if you think G based on that then I can't sway you. But factually the prosecution theory is very weak. A woman who was legitimately nuts and had no motive who reached out for help snapped. But literally nothing the prosecution is claiming is true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038261)

What's the other stuff the prosecution is claiming? Why are they getting away from the core story?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038287)

Not to mention the prosecutor is a fat woman with Hillary Clinton vibes who seems like she went to Suffolk Law and has risen to the highest level of her own incompetence, and the defense bro is a local Boston Chad who says things like "it was wicked cold that night" (this shit happened at like 5pm which is nighttime in New England already).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038328)

https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/981-balloberman-crim-law-casebook/resources/10.5.5-model-penal-code-sec-401/

"...or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038310)

The second way for the Commonwealth to prove a defendant

was criminally responsible for their conduct is for the Commonwealth

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the defendant

suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged

offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity

to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to

conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

To establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to

appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct, the

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant appreciated – that is, that the defendant knew or

understood in some meaningful way – that their conduct was either

illegal or wrong.

To establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to

conform their conduct to the law’s requirements, the Commonwealth

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any mental disease or

defect that may have existed at the time of the alleged offense did not

deprive the defendant of their ability to behave as the law requires –

that is, to obey the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038326)

Too many people just slide and let do because it can be tough to do what you gotta do. ("I know I should leave and protect the kids, but it could hurt my career because it will be tough to arrange child care this week, so I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and hope nothing too bad happens.") We're all guilty of that at times, though not in such an extreme way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038419)

Looks like he was doing tech sales at the tail end of Covid WFH and his wife was on maternity leave and seemed to be avoiding going back to work.

So he's mid level IQ, no biglaw superstar. Holding down 6 fig job possibly with growth potential. Probably has parents with money.

He looks like the type that has never said bitch cunt or nigger once in his life. Total normie slash white collar bot. He apparently liked skiing. Not a creative bone in his body. Vacant stare. Probably watches golf. No personality. Married a basic bitch. Modest home. He's gonna grind until he makes 250k and she adds another 85 from nursing. As long as you don't get divorced you're fine. Pretty rudimentary white collar bro of little note.

But when the chips were on the line he couldn't make the tough call. Typical soy boy. A real man would have ripped that cunt wife's skull off her spinal cord for getting close to his kids. A lib "man" isn't built for conflict.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038431)

You have found the defendant guilty of <insert crime[s]>. Now you must decide whether (he/she) was legally insane when (he/she) committed the crime[s].

The defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was legally insane when (he/she) committed the crime[s].The defendant was legally insane if:

1. When (he/she) committed the crime[s], (he/she) had a mental disease or defect; AND

2. Because of that disease or defect, (he/she) was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of (his/her) act or was incapable of knowing or understanding that (his/her) act was morally or legally wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038312)

California’s repeal aligned with a broader national trend. Following John Hinckley Jr.’s 1982 acquittal by reason of insanity for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan (which relied on the MPC standard), both Congress (via the federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984) and numerous states stripped the volitional "loss of control" element from their insanity tests, retreating to strict cognitive M'Naghten-style definitions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038319)

Local law is so quirky and fun!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038317)

Women having bouts of hysteria that involve suicide ideation and threats are pretty common, particularily postpartum. If we took their kids away if they express these feelings we're going to need a lot of state childcare facilities and that family disruption will often lead to worse outcomes. Plus it'll chill women from expressing these feelings and seeking help.

Anyone who has experienced a loved one attempting suicide after discussing it with you knows how difficult it is to decide what you should have done differently. Putting the onus on third parties like doctors seems especially dangerous since they'll have very little context and will default to taking the most extreme intervention to mitigate their own liability. Empowering the other parent to seperate the children has so many hazards. Consider how protection orders are often weaponized when there's little danger. How many parents heading into contentious custody battles will accuse the other of being a danger to the children so they can sole custody?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50038512)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUSH0D9LjSA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888224&forum_id=2Vannesa#50039745)