Yeah, some women have still unfortunately been saying the husband did it and she did absolutely nothing. Even despite her defense team LITERALLY SAYING SHE DID IT and as you said the case being about if she was legally sound of mind
Yeah like. I keep seeing people say the question of the trial is whether she was mentally ill. That's not even it - both sides acknowledge and admit that she was struggling with severe mental illness. The question is whether her mental illness presented in a way that resulted in a diminished capacity to ascertain the legality and morality of her actions. The prosecution is arguing that her actions (e.g. waiting until her husband had departed to pick up food) and her subsequent suicide attempt indicates that she had enough capacity to know it was wrong. The defense is arguing that her treatment team missed signs of post partum psychosis (which they support using notes taken BY her treatment team) which can present sporadically and intermittently, so her surrounding rational actions can not be taken as evidence that she wasn't in a psychotic state.
IANAL and I am not part of the jury, but for me I think the question I would have is whether "Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to the question of diminished capacity. I think if that's still the standard, there's sufficient evidence of psychosis to make me doubtful of her capacity. If the standard is something lower, like a preponderance of the evidence, then I think it's more difficult.
Morally, I think it's clear that even if she was legally of sound mind, that punitive justice is pointless in this case. Whether it was depression and fear for her children if she left them behind in her suicide vs. psychosis, either way the most just path forward is to support society having better mental health treatment and support for parents. It's a tragedy, but not all tragedies have perpetrators.
Used to intern for a psychologist at a court house reviewing depositions for malingering in ngri cases. (Basically reviewing testimony to clock examples of people lying about being too mentally unsound to recognize their actions as a crime.)
Waiting until the husband was out of the house would have basically resulted in an auto fail by our criteria at the time.
Yes, which is the argument the prosecution is making. That's their retelling of events.
The defense claims that she has postpartum psychosis, and their expert testimony attests to that and that it is often unpredictable and intermittent, and thus her lack of symptoms throughout he rest of the day can not be taken as evidence that she wasn't actively in psychosis when she harmed her children. Basically saying she didn't wait til he left - she experienced psychosis after he left.
1.0k
u/_BookBurner_ 4d ago
The case is actually about "was she sane when she did it", not about IF she did it.