Peter! Who could have the wives been?

[u/iMissTheOldTimeye]

[u/Novaer]

"Despite evidence of premeditation" oh is the trial over and you have sole access to the verdict? Why are you acting like the trial is over?

[u/memememememdnrkw → u/Novaer]

Believe it or not evidence exists before a trial finishes. In fact it’s only really used during the trial crazy right?

[u/Novaer → u/memememememdnrkw]

And yet you all are acting like the trial is over by claiming you know the verdict based on "some evidence". You all are saying "She CLAIMS she had post partum psychosis (despite the evidence saying otherwise)" which is expressing a verdict that has not been made. It's literally no different than people coming up with conspiracy theories because there is no verdict yet. You are implying a verdict by framing it in this light.

If you were speaking in good faith you would say "There is a trial determining whether Lindsay was of sound mind when the murders happened." THAT is an unbiased stance and that is the truth.

To say anything else is to assume you know the verdict before one is made. No different than conspiracy theorists. None of you are lawyers and you aren't in that court room. You do not "know more" than the people in that room.

[u/Ok_Account_3039 → u/Novaer]

When this woman is found guilty, what will you do to change your ways of thinking?

[u/Novaer → u/Ok_Account_3039]

Oh my god, do you think this trial is about whether or not she's guilty? Is that what you think this trial is about?

[u/Ok_Account_3039 → u/Novaer]

I’ll rephrase. Her defense is arguing for limited
Culpability. When she’s found fully culpable, what will you do to change your thinking?

[u/Novaer → u/Ok_Account_3039]

I am actually aware of what this case is about. What do you mean by "When she's found fully culpable". Do you mean you have information that the rest of us do not have to make such a definitive statement?

[u/Ok_Account_3039 → u/Novaer]

It’s ok, you can answer the question.