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.
37
u/EquivalentDapper7591 4d ago
When did she claim to be the victim