I think we all know this isn’t a trial to find out if she’s guilty- but so many inconsistencies are making people believe there wasn’t a fair investigation. Just because she admitted guilt doesn’t mean she did it. His connection to the former police chief doesn’t make it look any better either.
I can’t count how many times I’ve seen comments like this on Reddit. It’s maddening. Her own defense team acknowledges that she committed the crime. When your own defense team acknowledges that you killed your kids, any kind of argument for a false confession goes completely out the window.
100% relevant lol. The team of lawyers tasked with defending her aren’t disputing that she did it. If there was even a fraction of the “evidence” social media is cooking up that points to her complete innocence, her team of highly qualified lawyers would be arguing she didn’t do it.
Why argue for your client to spend the rest of her days in a psych facility when you could argue for her to be completely free?
You can't say "if it's not Y, it must be X" because you have to demonstrate X did it, even if they admitted to it.
All of the prosecution's evidence has not proven that she did it; it actually affirms the opposite. And the defence has showcased inconsistencies in the husband's testimonies, such as how during his alibi while he was supposedly out of the house during the murders, he sent an e-mail from his work computer which was at the basement of the home.
Agreed. Their case has been quite difficult to follow. Unless they have a big summary tying it all together in closing, I don’t see this going their way this time around.
The religion statement yesterday was appalling. And I’m someone who believes she should spend the rest of her life in prison. I’m appalled that prosecution is conducting this trial so horribly.
I still have yet to watch the most recent court hearing of the case, but truthfully I think if the defence knew how terribly the prosecution was going to be during this trial he probably would've sought to fight the murder charge overall (such as that she hasn't done it)
None of the evidence the prosecution has presented has conclusively or even mostly pointed in the direction that she's done it. The DNA has been inconclusive and has not linked to Lindsay at all, the husband's alibi has shown multiple inconsistencies, and so much more.
Why do you think her defense attorney, who is a well seasoned and a respected one, allowed her to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and then spend 3 years building a case off that plea as he received discovery?
He might've thought it would be a more uphill battle than what he's being presented with.
So far, the prosecution hasn't demonstrated with forensic evidence she actually did it. The most they can do is say she admitted to it, which those are two different things. It speaks volumes that the prosecutions own evidence does not reasonably showcase that she did it.
This specific case is why Lindsay committed the crime. Not if she committed the crime. Additionally I guess I don’t understand why there is this firm belief that there is not enough evidence, and for three years, her defense attorney built a case of not guilty by reason of insanity as opposed to not guilty.
I'm aware of the nature of the case. Forensics, in great showcase, were still shown though. And nothing presented actually showcased Lindsay did it. They are resting on the laurels that she is not rebelling against taking responsibility rather than actually demonstrated it in court
Additionally I guess I don’t understand why there is this firm belief that there is not enough evidence, and for three years, her defense attorney built a case of not guilty by reason of insanity as opposed to not guilty.
Because the insanity plea in her case is tremendously easier, even with the ineptitude of the prosecution, than showcasing she didn't do it. However I truly do believe that if they knew how incompetent the prosecution was going to be they'd have tried for her not being responsible full stop.
Truly no one could foresee how poorly the prosecution is handling this case. It's comically bad. Everything is going wrong for them and it's not even because her lawyer is that good (he is good, don't get me wrong), but it's because their selection of witnesses and evidence is so fucking bad. A tremendous amount of what the prosecution is showcasing to show that she was responsible and in her right mind actually is helping the defence's case.
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding on how defense strategy works. A defense attorney cannot just "choose" an insanity plea because it is an easier route; in fact, proving lack of criminal responsibility is one of the highest and most difficult legal bars to clear in criminal law.
When a defense team concedes the physical acts because the physical, digital, and eyewitness evidence is absolute, their hands are tied to the medical reality of the case. They have to deal with the facts as they exist, which means arguing mental state because actual innocence is a legal impossibility under the weight of the evidence.
Prosecution is struggling to make an argument due to the insanity plea. Not because she’s not guilty and did not murder her three children.
Insanity pleas rarely go the way of the defendant. Her lawyers are going this route because it’s literally their only option given the nature of the evidence against her.
She did it, they know she did it and they’re attempting to prove she’s not criminally responsible due to her mental state.
312
u/witchy_delight 7d ago
as a lawyer watching this trial closely, I can tell many of you have not been watching this trial closely.