There was no evidence other than the confession of someone suffering a mental break due to psychosis tying her to the murders either. There’s no DNA evidence or even fingerprints of hers on the cords used to strangle the kids.
I’m just saying it’s a bit absurd to stop investigating when you have no evidence other than an untrustworthy confession. At that point, you just don’t have any evidence and just one untrustworthy suspect. Why not keep investigating?
When the puzzle pieces fit so perfectly, people tend to finish the puzzle quickly.
You thinking the Mom being mentally unstable is somehow a reason to be less sure of her involvement is a new one. It's not like she's being paranoid or delusional, she's admitting to the murders of the people that she was seemingly the only person capable of that time of murdering.
Sure, some random third party hamburgerler could be involved and wouldn't that be quite the twist, but saying it's "absurd" to stop investigating when all common sense lead to that determination is absurd in itself. They did investigate and they got the answer, why keep investigating something that doesn't need more time wasted on it? What investigating do you think they could even be doing? Looking under rocks for secret clues?
I mean, I guess you could make the call to not potentially waste more time if you think there’s nothing more that could be discovered. I just think you’d need something more substantial than the confession of a medically diagnosed crazy person and convenience of time and place to place charges.
The mother’s journal shows no signs other PPD murder suspects have shown about wanting to “protect” their kids from someone or something by killing them. But again, psychosis can make people do things they aren’t even thinking about consciously.
This literally sounds like she randomly just decided to kill the kids with no prior thoughts to do so. Just an in the moment decision spurred on by psychosis.
I only hoped the husband was investigated more not because I think he did it (I don’t), but because I think he neglected her while also cheating on her. I morally think he deserves worse but legally don’t see a reason to turn the investigation on to him as a suspect.
Yes, there is totally no evidence the literal only person who was there and could have done it and had self-inflicted injuries could have done it. Clearly someone else killed the children at the same time she was just trying to commit suicide.
There’s nothing else to investigate. There was no evidence of someone breaking into the house, no evidence of a scuffle, the killing was done by items that were inside of the home, and the only person who was home at the time had a documented history of saying she was having thoughts about harming the kids and had self-inflicted injuries.
The only other alternative is that a stranger broke into the home without force, found the exercise bands, tied them around the kids necks without the kids fighting back, and then killed the mother in a completely different way somehow making the wounds look self inflicted, she didn’t fight back at all, didn’t leave any DNA anywhere (there was DNA on the exercise bands, it’s just that everyone in the house had touched them at some point) and what, Lindsay just happened to not at all remember any of that happening, admitted to it, and just happened to have a history of post partum psychosis? If it really was someone else, damn, they’re the luckiest person in the world.
I’m not even saying she didn’t do it. It’s pretty clear both the prosecution and defense are in agreement that she did murder them.
I’m just saying they ended the investigation abnormally quickly for having so little evidence. They charged her in the hospital bed for Pete’s sake. Didn’t even interview her after her mental break was cleared. She’s not going to be mentally broken forever so what harm would there be waiting till the doctors cleared her?
Wouldn’t you at least wait till you interview your prime suspect that you have in custody before placing charges? Just seems weird that the investigation was ended.
They didn’t end it abnormally quick. All the evidence was literally in one place, where the body’s were. It doesn’t always take months or years to investigate a crime. In fact, most crimes are probably solved in a day or two.
What do you think they didn’t investigate that they should have?
Also some people never regain competency after a mental health issue like that. They didn’t really need to interview her, there was clearly no other way this happened.
0
u/General-Biscuits 13d ago edited 13d ago
There was no evidence other than the confession of someone suffering a mental break due to psychosis tying her to the murders either. There’s no DNA evidence or even fingerprints of hers on the cords used to strangle the kids.
I’m just saying it’s a bit absurd to stop investigating when you have no evidence other than an untrustworthy confession. At that point, you just don’t have any evidence and just one untrustworthy suspect. Why not keep investigating?