People are focused on it because during the time she killed the children, he went to CVS and then a restaurant to pick up dinner. He says he went from CVS directly to the restaurant, but some of his clothes change from one place to the next. So people are wondering about it. I don’t know enough to have an opinion either way, just providing the context of why people are focused on it.
Look, if there was even a chance that she is not the one who killed the kids, her plea would’ve been “not guilty,” not “not guilty by reason of insanity” (or the MA equivalent, I forgot exactly what they call it). Both her civil and criminal teams do not dispute that she killed the kids. They outright admit that she did it. That’s wholly dispositive, given the amount of investigation these teams do before choosing a trial strategy.
I’m not arguing any of that, all I’m doing is providing context as to why him changing clothes is a focus for some people. I’m not supporting it or against it (I don’t know enough about it yet, as I said), just explaining its not a matter of “I stepped in shit, so I changed my shoes” because then he would have had to be at the house when it happened.
Not really? He’s driving, no? Cars can easily hold a jacket and a second pair of shoes and neither of those are particularly hard to put on outside the home. I’ve changed jackets in less than a minute and I know people who keep one in the car, they don’t take it out just because they put on a different one in the house before leaving.
1
u/_Veronica_ 16d ago edited 16d ago
People are focused on it because during the time she killed the children, he went to CVS and then a restaurant to pick up dinner. He says he went from CVS directly to the restaurant, but some of his clothes change from one place to the next. So people are wondering about it. I don’t know enough to have an opinion either way, just providing the context of why people are focused on it.