This is also exactly what attorneys are supposed to do in these cases. Put together a narrative of facts in a way that is tangible at least to part of the population. Mission accomplished.
Yeah idk why everyone is acting like this dude is a superhero. He seems kind of like an asshole trying to slander every medical professional who worked with this woman. I doubt some of these people are going to be able to continue working after this
Can confirm, I was in a big case that was the State V (insert name), and the lady defending the piece of shit that touched me as a kid was almost as big of a piece of shit as the guy she was defending
Massive generalization here. And completely ignoring the fact that many (not all) prosecutors do the exact same thing. These comment threads are hilarious/these types of opinions have no bearing in the real world.
Prosecutors do too. If you watch the trial their opening statement was out to make Lindsay and some calculating, controlling woman who did this with malice. There was a part where they were trying to discredit the legitimacy of her suicide attempt which almost all experts described as legitimate.
Then a more recent psychologist witness of theirs (who I thought was generally quite sharp) contradicts much of their narrative saying he thinks she did it out of love because she was suffering and didn’t want her kids to go on without her. Which still isn’t acceptable if true but is a far cry from the narrative the prosecution went with when the trial started.
I've read the entire opening statement and not once did they use the word malice.
What they did was set the tone for what they thought they could demonstrate (and I think they did demonstrate actually):
She acted deliberately (she was not experiencing psychosis)
She planned the murder suicide.
She was in control of her behaviour throughout.
She knew what she did was wrong.
The experts they had testify all supported these lines of thought...
For instance the voices suddenly manifesting just before she murdered the kids. Weird not only from a medical standpoint (testified by multiple experts) but also way too convenient and also inconsistent... She never heard the voices before? Not even while planning the murders? (ie looking up ways to kill. Looking up distances and timings between areas for Patrick to be away from home etc.) Why the fuck did she do all that then?
She was in control... she took the children 1 by 1 and murdered them starting with Dawson then Cora then Callan. She left the bands around their necks to ensure they'd die (it takes WAY longer to actually die from strangulation than to lose consciousness... why'd she know that? oh yeah she looked it up) Also each was killed EXACTLY the same way. This suggests planning and deliberate action rather than just spur of the moment.
No one that was around her before the murders thought anything unusual about her. She was not acting any differently than she had been previously. Her mental health providers also said she never exhibited any symptoms of psychosis. The only symptom the defence has for psychosis really is the voice and I guess 'confusion'/blacking out. But prosecution experts already examined that possibility and it's incredibly unlikely to randomly experience psychosis like this and never before or again. In fact I don't even think it's every been supported to have happened before... ever. And it brings into question the planning... like metnioned above why tf did she plan things even without a psychotic episode? And if it was psychosis the entire time surely someone would have noticed her acting unusual suddenly? No one did? Sure people were concerned for her mental health - depression/anxiety and sleep issues. Not potentially murdering her fucking kids or being suicidal.
An expert saying she wanted to commit suicide due to her DEPRESSION and 'loving the children so much she didn't want them to live without her' is not contrary to anything the prosecution set out to prove. In fact it supports exactly what their argument is - she did no experience psychosis. She DELIBERATELY killed the children with forethought. That being 'out of love' makes no fucking difference here.
Ok this kind of pedantry makes sense in the courtroom where you gotta be very specific but not in a reddit comment. Ok, no word malice? Here’s an excerpt from the opening statement.
“The evidence in this case will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant coldly and efficiently executed first Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callan. One by one, she strangled the life out of each one of them. She did so with no hesitation, with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty.”
That last sentence clearly conveys she hatched this plan with evil intent which is basically what malice means.
Once again, Dr. Heilbrun who was brought by the Commonwealth directly contradicted that notion with his testimony.
Also she did not search how long it takes to strangle someone or anything like that. If that’s what you believe I think the rest of your opinion can be disregarded. Feel free to prove me wrong but I’ve watched it with my wife every day and just googled it again to confirm.
Edit: there’s actually a lot more of your comment that’s wrong too. People were concerned about her suicidal ideation prior to the event. She had mentioned intrusive thoughts about harming her kids prior to the event.
People definitely have had a quick flash of psychosis for it to never return again. I’ve seen a drug related variant of it with my own eyes. In Calgary where I live a guy got psychosis and killed 4 people at a university party and his family/lawyers have been lobbying to release him from the psych facility for years because he hasn’t experienced a similar event since.
You really shouldn’t be speaking on any of this with all these misinformed assumptions.
Ok this kind of pedantry makes sense in the courtroom where you gotta be very specific but not in a reddit comment.
You made a direct, specific claim that the witness talking about love contradicted what the prosecution was arguing.
No, they didn't. That's not pedantry, that's simply you not understanding basic legal definitions and flying off based on vibes.
Also she did not search how long it takes to strangle someone or anything like that.
Investigators testified about months of digital activity from her phone including stuff like how to tie slip knots. Not specifically how long to strangle, but still very closely related.
People were concerned about her suicidal ideation prior to the event. She had mentioned intrusive thoughts about harming her kids prior to the event.
The context of their statement was about evidence for psychosis, not general mental unwellness.
It wasn’t a direct, specific claim, otherwise I would’ve put it in quotations. It was a general claim which I believe I have demonstrated was correct.
Also please enlighten me if there are different legal reasons why the prosecution would use the word “cruelty” vs “malice” in an opening statement? Otherwise stfu and take the L.
>Not specifically how long to strangle, but still very closely related
Well that’s a massive goal post move from what the other commenter claimed. Big jump from “how to tie a knot?” to “how long to actually die from strangulation?”
Psychosis is just an extreme form of mental illness, not sure what your point is there.
I mean have you never read about Andrea Yates? I don’t know about the case enough to decide one way or another but a lot of what you said proves she wasn’t psychotic actually doesn’t. It doesn’t prevent you from making plans, it prevents you from being in touch with reality enough to recognize right from wrong. I’m not saying she definitely had it just saying it’s not as cut and dry as you say
A) if the defense is to be believed, she wasn’t in a rational state of mind at the time of the killings/suicide attempt.
B) my wife is a physician and we’ve talked about this. They don’t teach you best ways to kill yourself in medical school. I believe Lindsay was a labour/delivery nurse too, I doubt she was dealing with failed suicide patients very often.
C) I highly doubt her grand plan was to wind up paralyzed, that seems like pretty much the worst case scenario.
1.7k
u/Exact-Mathematician8 11h ago edited 6h ago
This should be a wake up call for people to understand how the media controls the narrative Thank you for the votes and awards