Voices said kill the kids so she allegedly killed the kids. Fine, she’s not guilty of murder 1. So she’s crazy as shit and should be locked up in the mental hospital until she self deletes.

She didn't allegedly kill the kids. She admits she killed the kids. She wasn't too crazy to plan the murders. If she was a schizophrenia patient who had been left with the kids, she might not be guilty of murder. Because she felt a certain way, she wacked her own kids.

Mistrial

Watch the leftists speak in tongues and chew off their own limbs.

If I were king this is how it would go:
A. You are crazy and killed your kids, so you must die

Or

B. You killed your kids, so you must die

ZERO recidivism rate.

^^^^^^^yep

put her in gen-pop and ensure all the other women in there know she murdered her children.

system will self correct.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
She wasn't too crazy to plan the murders. If she was a schizophrenia patient who had been left with the kids, she might not be guilty of murder. Because she felt a certain way, she wacked her own kids.

She's batshit crazy like Charlie Manson or Jeffery Dahmer crazy, but as these two and countless others proved, crazy evil people can carefully plan actions and crimes, plan to avoid detection. Dahmer was one crazy fuck, but he was declared legally sane at his trial.

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
Voices said kill the kids so she allegedly killed the kids. Fine, she’s not guilty of murder 1. So she’s crazy as shit and should be locked up in the mental hospital until she self deletes.

Unfortunately when there's no criminal conviction, she can be released as soon as the mental health "professionals" deem her to no longer be an IMMEDIATE DANGER TO HERSELF OR OTHERS, which could be in a week, a month, or year or so after she's committed. As we've seen in far too many cases, the mentally ill are being "treated" with drugs and in manners that are far from consistent and the "science" of even evaluating when or even if these subjects are safe to release leaves a lot to be desired.

Actually the legal standard for "insanity" is a controversial subject as there's a huge push by mental health "experts" to classify almost all criminal acts as being merely symptoms of underlying mental defects or illness, versus the more commonly recognized standard of: If the accused knew the difference between RIGHT and WRONG, understood the wrongfulness of the act, and STILL COMMITTED THE CRIME, he or she should still be held accountable criminally.

The defense bar has no problem getting "Progressive" mental health experts testifying that things like post-traumatic stress, social pressure, and an "undeveloped brain" caused an otherwise "normal" person to commit the most inexcusable acts. Look at how sexual predators are now demanding to be called things like "MAPs" (Minor Attracted Persons) to make pedophilias normalized as just something on the spectrum of sexual preference. If pedophilia and other diagnoses are normalized, how can society consider punishment (for a violation of law) as valid? This is what progressive "prosecutors" like George Gascon (for Los Angeles County District Attorney), used to justify diverting sexual abusers to mental health facilities instead of filing criminal charges. The victims? They were simply referred to counseling and their demands for "justice" ignored.

My concern is that with the lessening of a standard of responsibility, we can very easily see the same lack of accountability for things such as a habitual spouse/child abuser getting an insanity verdict for killing his wife and kids, because she decided to flee the abuser with the children for their own good.

How about a mass shooter that attacks members of a synagogue because he's under the delusion that Jews are all responsible for the evils in the world? The actual victims (or society) will be more and more demonized, as the offender is made less and less personally accountable. If virtually every kind of "crazy" is excused as a result of "experts" providing titles to their issues but we ignore actual evidence that the offender demonstrated a consciousness of GUILT and other proof that the defendant tried to escape the consequences for the crime(s) they committed, what becomes of the rule of law? Sometimes the offender's "escape" might even include an unsuccessful suicide attempt, but how often have we seen cases where an abuser wants to maintain control over his victim so much that he's willing to kill himself as long as he's inflicted the most harm possible on his significant other AND those that matter most to her? If his attempt to kill himself fails, but the homicides succeed, do we merely "treat" him for his mental issues or hold him accountable as a criminal?

That's a pretty tall order for the prosecution to prove she isn't insane

Mistrial
Erick-Woods Erickson
Sep 4



I don’t mean to inundate you with emails today, but if you get online or talk to your circle of friends and talk about the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, you need to know something significant.

Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where, if a judge allows a defendant to argue they were insane based on certain criteria, then the jury, when they deliberate, must assume the defendant is insane, and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually sane.

How do you show Lindsay Clancy was sane when she strangled her three toddlers, slit her own throat, and jumped out a second-story window, rendering her permanently paralyzed?

That’s a pretty tough thing for the prosecution to show.

My guess is that the jury was not going for “not guilty” but “not guilty by reason of insanity” with one hold out.

You lawyers can read the Massachusetts model jury instruction here.

You won’t get that nuance from the online mob, but it is deeply relevant.


https://ewerickson.substack.co...rue&utm_medium=email

I saw that Defense attorney wanting the judge to keep them in the room, he new he had the jury he needed to get her acquitted or sent to a psych ward. He even stated one Juror didn't understand the legal requirements, meaning, he didn't have a pussy and wasn't going to let her off.

Good for him, I'd have done the same and stood my ground against those lunatic women on the Jury.

She looked it up on how to kill her kids
Then, she killed them, one by one, imagine
what the others were going through as "mom" killed them if they were in the room.

She deserves to be hung in public until dead...

The Constance Fisher case in Maine is well worth noting. She murdered her three children in 1954 and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. A few years later, the mental health "professionals" that examined her deemed her "safe" to release back into society. In 1966, she murdered her other three children and was returned to a psychiatric hospital, where she later escaped and was found dead. I find it difficult to believe that she didn't know the wrongfulness of killing her first set of children. That she didn't know it as wrong to kill her other three children after YEARS of psychiatric counseling???

https://www.dailymail.com/crim...ed-murder-maine.html

She's has a fan club.
Code pink ?

https://x.com/i/status/2095633434832237047

I read where these bitches are CONVINCED the husband did it and she was brainwashed into believing she did it.

You cannot make this stuff up. There is an element in our society now meant to divide us with this sort of nonsense.
And it's WORKING.

Maybe it's time all sane men start any and every conversation with a woman, no matter reason for the interaction, do they support her knowing she admitted murdering her children, or not.

Simple yes or no response.
If yes, end the interaction and seek another person.

I mean, store clerks, paying your bills, dating.
Any an all interactions.

Gonna sting a bit now and again, but men are going to need to sack up and start changing the "narrative".

We need to go all Outer Limits...

"There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are now controlling the transmission. We control the horizontal and the vertical. We can deluge you with a thousand channels or expand one single image to crystal clarity and beyond. We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive. For the next hour, we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the deepest inner mind to The Outer Limits."

(Serious, not being funny)

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
...the impact on this country will be amplified tremendously if she gets away with it, and the ensuing uproar may have meaningful effect on this attitude of leftist women who support and even endorse infanticide...

No doubt. The patron saint of infanticide, "Ethics" Professor Peter Singer, of Princeton, says that it is morally fine for the mother to kill a child up to 2 years after it has been born.

Oddly enough this sick, evil man agrees with the pro-life community that life most likely begins at conception.

Break out the hooded Druid robes and build the stone altars for child sacrifice.



.

I would suggest a new prosecutorial team. I wouldn't hire any of them to represent me in a traffic court case.

She "cannot imagine what else it could possibly be" other than a grift. She cannot imagine principled behavior and standing one's ground on those principles.

https://x.com/LukaLev/status/2095987312555409563

quote:

She cannot imagine principled behavior and standing one's ground on those principles.

That concept is entirely foreign to them. Never experienced it, never heard of it.

These people are not normal.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
These people are not normal.

An otherwise attractive woman covering herself in tattoos is the first clue. In short order she'll have a face full of fishing tackle, stretched out earlobes, and green hair.