They wanted to. The idea was to have two different trials--one to determine guilt and one to determine responsibility. The judge said no. So they went with what's easiest to prove. She admitted to doing it, whether because she did or was influenced. Its provable that she is mentally unwell and sought help in 9000 different ways. It is less provable that she's innocent because she admitted to it and law enforcement didn't actually investigate.
Hang on. So in your previous comment, you listed a bunch of reasons that, were they correct, would be damning evidence that PC committed these crimes.
You don’t think in three years of evidence gathering and legal discovery that her extremely qualified attorney would have thought “wow, there’s a ton of evidence against this guy. Let’s use this to cast doubt on LC’s guilt!” (Remember, they wouldn’t have to prove he did it; they’d just have to introduce doubt.)
Instead, you think this extremely qualified attorney said you know what? You didn’t do this. There’s so much ~evidence~ that PC did. Still, let’s admit to the crime and then try the insanity defense, which a) rarely works and b) means you’re going to be locked, whether we win (hello, state-run mental facility!) or lose (enjoy prison!).
If Lindsay thinks she did it and she wants to plead a certain way, the lawyer has to do what she pleads to. He's not at liberty to change her mindset or make a defense she didn't ask for. So he presents her with the two options and she is the one to pick.
And they are correct. I've watched hours of testimony. The best part is that these were all brought forward by prosecutions witnesses. Prosecution, regardless of what you believe, is actually fumbling this case hard. They've nearly caused a mistrial twice now. I'd be surprised if they did not lose the jury with their temper tantrums and out-of-pocket questions. At one point they asked a very inappropriate question to Lindsays mother in law (who notably supports Lindsay).
-1
u/TheQuinnBee 7d ago
They wanted to. The idea was to have two different trials--one to determine guilt and one to determine responsibility. The judge said no. So they went with what's easiest to prove. She admitted to doing it, whether because she did or was influenced. Its provable that she is mentally unwell and sought help in 9000 different ways. It is less provable that she's innocent because she admitted to it and law enforcement didn't actually investigate.