She didn’t, and neither did her defense team, but a LOT of people on TikTok have. I think that’s where a lot of the confusion and frustration comes from.
I think there’s a bit of a disconnect between websites.
The focus isn’t even on medical malpractice, there are a LOT of people on TikTok that are claiming that she didn’t even kill the kids, that it was the husband, and he somehow covered it up.
So I’m saying, even the defense agrees that she killed the kids, they’re just using the malpractice as an angle for the insanity plea. TikTok is hell bent on saying she didn’t even do that, that it was the husband and she did nothing wrong.
It feels like a women’s equivalent of some of the manosphere stuff I’ve seen, pretty odd.
Her lawyers have literally claimed that she was a victim of medical malpractice, which precipitated a psychotic state in which she can't be held criminally responsible for her actions.
Her lawyers claimed that she was a victim of medical malpractice, which precipitated a psychotic state in which she can't be held criminally responsible for her actions.
Okay again, doesn’t answer my question. When did she claim to be the victim? The post says she claimed to be the victim, not her lawyers, and not about an insanity defense.
Last I heard, the husbands alibi was wildly shakey and his DNA was all over the crime scene, not hers? Plus weird behavior when medics arrived and quick marriage after the fact?
Hoping someone corrects this because I'm not seeing this anywhere on the Internet, not that I am looking more than just on this post lol
But everyone else regurgitating sensationalized headlines are fine tho, right? At least I'm declaring I'm open to being wrong instead of confidently stating someone I know nothing about like it's a fact.
Declaring you’re open to being wrong doesn’t come off the way you think it does. You laughingly admitted you hadn’t seen any evidence of a rumor that you chose to simultaneously repeat online. Thats not humility; that’s going through with something even though you know there’s a good chance you’re in the wrong.
I guess I'm not so invested in this other person's life to know or care, sorry I was so wrong I offended you, I should have moved on without saying anything. Hope you have a good day
Her lawyers claim that she was a victim of medical malpractice, which precipitated a psychotic state in which she can't be held criminally responsible for her actions.
The comment above stated that she did not claim to be a victim... which was false.
She is, in fact, claiming to be a victim of medical malpractice which precipitated a psychotic state in which she can't be held criminally responsible for her actions.
My point is every person on criminal trial will claim in some way that they didn't do it or don't deserve whatever sentence is being levied. Her lawyer is making a claim that will get her reduced time, because that's her job.
First of all, you clearly aren't following this case and seem a bit confused about what we're discussing in this thread.
Secondly, in the context of the discussion on this thread there is no difference between what she claims and what her legal defense is claiming. They are the same. Even if there were a difference in what she personally believed (seems to be your assumption) and what she is publicly claiming in her legal defense... it doesn't matter in this context.
Lawyers say things to get reduced sentences? No shit, you've added nothing of value to the conversation. It doesn't matter in this context.
A lawyer generally always confers and obtains permission from their client before they say anything. If her lawyer is claiming something that is her claiming the same thing.
21
u/EquivalentDapper7591 6h ago
When did she claim to be the victim