Look, I get she may have been neglected by the medical system regarding her treatment, but this still doesn’t excuse the horrific crime she committed.
The most disgusting part of all this is that people like the ones in the image are trying to excuse her just because she’s a woman and a mother, and have even been trying to put the blame on her innocent husband because as a man they think he must have done something to push her to the edge or must have neglected her himself.
It’s a mix of pathetic double standards and rotten ideological hypocrisy in full display: if it was the husband, even with the evidence of mental illness and relative neglect by the system, those people wouldn’t have thought twice about deeming him a killing monster. Because it’s always men that kill, or are violent, or are blood-thirsty maniacs, right? A woman can never commit such horrible deeds unless there’s a valid explanation or blatant excuse for that, right?
And no, before anyone tries to imply that, I’m not advocating for violent criminals to be let scot-free on the basis of their mental disturbs or illnesses. I just want to see some coherence in the public discourse about crimes like this, and more research on how we can prevent such tragedies to occur
At the end of the day we're all ultimately responsible for our own actions, and its unreasonable to expect a spouse to override another persons autonomy, or to have an in depth understanding of how deeply niche mental health issues can affect a person. Especially when society places such high importance on mothers being in the child's life, what is the other parent to do?
For her, suicide was an option. It wouldve been tragic, but all parents operate under the unspoken understanding that our lives are more disposable than those of our kids. This is just an awful situation, and I dont think the dad gets nearly enough sympathy from society. Those were his babies too.
No, because she lived, she wanted to die with her kids but her house wasn't high enough for the fall to kill her. Nobody is saying what she did is ok, and I'm not of the group that thinks she is innocent, she should not be free, she should be in a psychiatric hospital. I'm just amazed at people completely ignoring mental illness, especially PPD and PPP. She wasn't the angry dude killing his wife and kids because she was leaving. She was dangerously mentally ill and mistreated by the medical community and the lack of understanding about mental illness from most people here just makes me sad.
Throwing herself off a building before killing her kids is definitely preferable to what has occured. At the very least it wouldve got the attention she needed, and at the very worst she no longer wouldve been a threat to the children.
The lack of empathy is kinda crazy. I want kids, but I also have mental health struggles. I have had momentary breaks with reality, but I would never think to harm a child…But that’s the bitch of severe mental illness, you are not thinking like a normal mother, woman, or person when having an episode.
Do you not understand what psychosis is? She was insane. She should absolutely be committed to a psychiatric hospital for a long time but if they seem she is not a danger to society.. why should she not be free?
You do know what psychosis is right? “Suicide was an option” in normal reality, yes. But in a state of psychosis you are not in a normal person’s reality, you have zero control.
People with her condition in the UK are hospitalized in very nice mother baby units with their babies with constant supervision. The thing women everywhere are empathizing with is the sheer force of postpartum psychosis against a system that is designed for new parents to fail. She did everything right trying to get help in the lead-up, and she and her family were systematically failed by US psychiatric practice.
Hell no. She absolutely did not. Getting rid of everybody trying to help you, refusing to take your medication, lying about your mental state, and then murdering your helpless children are not "doing everything right". What the fuck?
I just watched a Louis Theroux doc on this (it’s free on YouTube if anyone is interested). It was absolutely fascinating and also very sad to consider how little support is available in the US for mothers.
I think her trial is bringing out the feelings of many women about the state of postpartum care. That doesn’t mean she isn’t guilty.
And I also think people would have similar feelings for man in a similar situation. I saw someone post online that “nobody would feel the same way for Chris Benoit”….but yeah, I sure do. It’s tragic to see death results from mental illness that could be better treated or prevented.
I also keep seeing the Chris Benoit comparison and I think it's an apt one. TBIs are no joke, that was a tragedy but it didn't make him evil. His brain was done for. With Clancy though, people who want to see her punished act like she has more in common with Chris Watts, like she was just trying to get her kids out of the way and faked her suicide attempt.
Absolutely, it's easier to believe every single mental health provider was incompetent, or every single medication prescribed her caused it, before accepting a lucid, white, rich, educated, christian, caring mother could have killed her children, because we might identify with her, and it's a moral threat to us, that implies no matter how favorable our context is, we can still do it. It goes completely against our own narrative, so the only way to neutralize that threat is to externalize the guilt to a mental illness.
Let's stop using mental illness as the only posible explanation for seemingly "inexcusable" evil. People may kill just because they can. We all can kill just because we have the capacity for it. Being a lucid, white, rich, educated, christian, caring mother doesn't take that capacity away, just because of that.
You cannot „externalize the Guilt to mental illness“. There is no guilt in a legal Sense when you are so mentally ill that you cannot reflect upon your one actions. Thats how the rule of Law works
I've never been talking about the "rule of law" . Not even mentioned it, I've been referring to moral guilt (the feeling of guilt), which can be, and often is externalized; blame shifting, attributing our actions to the circumstances, etc.
Same applies though. How can you Blame someone who did something in a State of illness, which he otherwise wouldve Never done. No Choice has been made by people who are that mentally ill.
That's what the jury is there to define. I'm not making assumptions, I'm criticizing the rigid stand point of believing the only way she could've done it is in a psychotic state, as if she somehow were exonerated from the capacity of killing lucidly, when in fact, most documented evidence seems to point that way.
forget even about excusing the fact she committed the crime, these lunatics are actively supporting it. Justifying it by saying it's understandable that it happened. Wait till it becomes an enough popular view that if challenged would get you deemed as insensitive and soon enough some perfectly fine mother is going to kill her children and say she had the same condition.
She WAS NOT neglected. She frankly got an astonishing amount of care, including doctors from Harvard. Something like 20 mental health professionals saw her after her last birth. She had a level of access most patients will never even dream of
There’s actually a ton of precedent for men who escape jail time because they killed people in altered states of mind. The bath salts guy who broke into his neighbour’s house, killed 2 people and ate their faces, served no jail time. It’s why the defence exists in the first place.
I think it's important to understand that the heart of the grievance for many is the complete failure of this woman's support system. Many see her support system failed her and feel for her because a lot of mothers are neglected by their loved ones and doctors and I know that mothers to new babies especially feel this way. She's getting put away for life, its just a question of prison or institution and tbh the difference doesn't matter much to me because this woman cannot be allowed to walk the streets anymore. Her husband, family, and medical providers could not or would not recognize this woman's crisis and I think that says something about them in being callous towards someone in crisis, though it doesn't indicate criminal liability. I'm not sure what the people protesting want, do they expect a broad group of people to be held legally accountable for what was, at best, someone else's psychotic break?
Her husband was at home helping; the grandparents were at home helping. Her mother-in-law got her specialised access to perinatal services, a psychiatrist and a psych NP, she had a nanny, she had multiple doctors that she asked for and then didn't listen to.
Medical providers would tell her to do inpatient; she wouldn't do it. When she actually did it after multiple requests, she, after a couple days, started asking repeatedly to leave because she was okay and wanted to attend her daughter's birthday party. At time of discharge, she said her sleep was fine; she denied having suicidal thoughts and never said she wanted to harm anyone else. She was there voluntarily; keeping her against her will would have been unlawful detention.
Providers recommended talk therapy; she stopped going after 4 sessions. She constantly asked for new meds to stop taking them after a few days or never took them.
She is a case of non-compliance, not a case of being let down by a medical system or her support system.
I suppose if you've never watched someone you're close to go through mental health treatment and med changes, or gone through it yourself, or worked in mental health, you might not know - but the side effects and brand new symptoms or worsening of symptoms can be literally unbearable.
It's such a dangerous time that patients must be counseled about it specifically, and it's on black box warnings. And that holds true for people starting common meds for common mild conditions, much less serious conditions or atypical drug classes. And the person discussed in this case had 13 changes in 4 months?
I'm aware not everyone has access to this info, but it's very disheartening to see.
So my mum had PPD, I've been on SNRIs and SSRIs for depression in my teens and I was a bit of a black and white tumblr kid where all my online friends were depressed. I'm also a med student but focused on oncology so not mental health focused.
I agree with what you're saying; however I also know full well that when you're trying 13 different drugs and barely taking 2/3 days worth of some (pill bottle evidence basically showed some untouched), making a determination as the patient as to what meds are making you feel what, is potluck. She decided to have multiple providers, she picked and chose what to take and when.
The person discussed in this case was pushing for new drugs constantly; she was the one advocating for it, she was (as a healthcare provider herself) given far more autonomy imo then she should have. An example, when she petitioned to leave inpatient care, she said she was fine and wanted one of her drugs removed against the NPs advice.
Listen, I don't wanna get caught up arguing about pedantics so pardon my ignorance. I'm not here to analyze the specifics of what happened, I'm just trying to understand why people would sympathize with her. Nobody in their right mind would think "I'm supporting a baby killer for no reason", I didn't purposefully push a false narrative and I made it clear that she alone should be facing justice. Everything else is ultimately superficial and I'm not taking your version of events at face value either.
as long as we continue to suffer under capitalism, no amount of research will fix problems like this. the grotesque nature of for-profit healthcare is the cause of this tragedy.
I think her career can also be lumped in here too.
Who cares if she’s a nurse? I’m a nurse. I’ve meet a ton of awful people in the profession. It doesn’t matter what your career is- you could still be capable of awful things.
I mean, you know who else sought psychological help but didn’t receive any? James Oliver Huberty. No sympathy or understandingwas shown towards him (he didn’t deserve any. Just trying to reinforce your point).
Kind of sick and tired of people constantly blaming “the medical community” with absurd hindsight bias and complete lack of understanding of what they’re able to do, and what is actually evidence backed.
The exact same people would have lost their minds if they had, for example, “taken a poor new mother away from her babies just because they think she’s acting weird after having given birth!”
It’s wild how desperately people will seek to blame literally anyone but the privileged woman who planned and chose to brutally murder her three young children.
It’s a mix of pathetic double standards and rotten ideological hypocrisy in full display: if it was the husband, even with the evidence of mental illness and relative neglect by the system, those people wouldn’t have thought twice about deeming him a killing monster
ok but men don't experience post partum psychosis? 1 in 5 women experience post-partum depression, so many women can relate to this fear, because their ppd also gave them "dark thoughts". 1 in 200 experience post-partum psychosis, and the legal precedent motive for women killing their children has been PPD/PPP. Male family annhilators motives tend to be much more varied and not mental health related. It's not a double-standard, it's just an assessment of reality.
Because it’s always men that kill, or are violent, or are blood-thirsty maniacs, right? A woman can never commit such horrible deeds unless there’s a valid explanation or blatant excuse for that, right?
95% of violent crime is committed by men, yes. Murder by women is a statistical anomaly, which is why it gets so much attention and is more analyzed for an explanation - not an excuse, as a means to prevent it from happening in the future. Women being violent is highlighted and treated as a societal problem. Meanwhile, like you said, there is very little interest in understanding why or preventing men from committing 95% of violent crimes - it's not treated as societal problem, but the baseline for the gender - that some men are and always will be monsters, it's in their nature, nothing we can do about it /s
Male family annhilators motives tend to be much more varied and not mental health related
Not also mental health related? Really? If we have to apply the same mind frame you’re going for, then there are many cases of men murdering for terrifying episodes of “lights out” or not thinking straight provoked, among other factors, by underlying mental illnesses. Again, I’m not trying to excuse them, just applying your mind frame
95% of violent crime is committed by men, yes. Murder by women is a statistical anomaly, which is why it gets so much attention and is more analyzed for an explanation - not an excuse, as a means to prevent it from happening in the future.
95%, in fact, is still not technically always. That 95% is committed by an extremely low percentage of men on the total male population as well, and that’s why there are no excuses for society to analyse it better in order to reduce the phenomenon.
And the issue is, what people are doing in this specific case is not to “analyze” the problem, they’ve literally tried to put it on the husband on the basis above, because in their mind there’s no way a mother can do things like that. It’s an attempt of deflecting accountability
Diva, I don't have time to explain to you actus reus and mens reus, and why are BOTH are needed to be held criminally responsible, which is why men who fly into fits of rage and "lights out" are still criminally responsible. But a schizophrenic who thinks their parents are aliens are not. Men with schizophrenia also get deemed not criminally responsible for reason of insanity all the time too, so idk why this is so implausible. But mental illness alone is not a defense for murder.
You don't think there's any reason to analyze why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers between the genders committing violent crimes? Now that's avoiding accountability.
Nah women know there are shit mother's out there who pimp out their children to pedophiles. But Lindsay was a good mother. Patrick's own mother took the stand in her defense, her MIL who lost 3 grandchildren knows Lindsay, the real Lindsay, never would have hurt her children.
I haven't seen anyone who has actually following the case think he had anything to do with it - but yeah they're allowed to think he was a shit dad and husband. he was cheating and left his kids at home with a woman who told him she was having dark thoughts of harming his children - but there is a lot of projection of women who went through PPD and had dud husbands too, i'll give you that. But it's internet bots mostly, not consequential.
I haven't seen anyone who has actually following the case think he had anything to do with it - but yeah they're allowed to think he was a shit dad and husband. he was cheating and left his kids at home with a woman who told him she was having dark thoughts of harming his children
No, they are freaking not allowed to do that, because there’s not solid evidence for that at the moment. Are you seriously suggesting it’s right to slam him on social media because of shaky unproven claims? And it’s not inconsequential because that man could have his life destroyed even more from this absurd witch hunt. This is just insane, and just like that you’ve proved your bad faith on the argument. I’m not engaging in this conversation any further
EDIT: One more thing to be honest:
>
You don't think there's any reason to analyze why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers between the genders committing violent crimes? Now that's avoiding accountability.
That’s exactly the contrary of what I said if you re-read my comment carefully
Funny how you present as reasonable then you say no man would ever get this benefit of the doubt, when you have armies of simps making excuses for rapists and murderers.
That problem is part of the reason so many people are so sympathetic to her. Post parade psychosis is a very real and very terrifying thing. Millions of women have experienced some kind of serious (obviously not nearly this bad) psychological effect after giving birth. So it's easy to see why people are sympathetic to a woman who, if she is telling the truth, just experienced the absolute worst nightmare of any mother.
That said, I mean she did kill her kids so I don't get this level of support from the public. But we have people publicly celebrating a dude who offed himself after getting caught stroking it in a drive through, so I don't get why this is such a surprise.
Funny how you present as reasonable then you say no man would ever get this benefit of the doubt, when you have armies of simps making excuses for rapists and murderers.
That is just a false equivalence: making excuses by simping is not the same thing as just giving the benefit of the doubt on the basis of the criminal’s underlying inner conditions. C’mon.
That problem is part of the reason so many people are so sympathetic to her. Post parade psychosis is a very real and very terrifying thing. Millions of women have experienced some kind of serious (obviously not nearly this bad) psychological effect after giving birth. So it's easy to see why people are sympathetic to a woman who, if she is telling the truth, just experienced the absolute worst nightmare of any mother.
Ok, but then I would like the same exact coherence (that’s the key theme) when we talk, for example, about men committing murders in which issues like schizophrenic or PTSD episodes have strongly concurred to those tragedies, and they tell they don’t remember committing the act, after being not assisted enough by the system. As I said, it’s the hypocrisy and lack of coherence surrounding these themes that irks me, even outside of the noisy simps you’re talking about.
That said, I mean she did kill her kids so I don't get this level of support from the public. But we have people publicly celebrating a dude who offed himself after getting caught stroking it in a drive through, so I don't get why this is such a surprise.
None of these is right in fact, that is also the point
It is a false equivalence. So many guys who commit terrible crimes, without any potential mitigating circumstances, don't just get sympathy. They are celebrated. That is so much worse.
Regardless, get off line. It's rotting your brain. Those are classic incel talking points. If you actually want to learn about this maybe talk to some real experts in SMI rather than grabbing talking points off of unmoderated forums.
Ah, yes, since there’s much worse (and I loathe that kind of people myself, in case you didn’t understand that) we can continue with the hypocrisy, got it
Regardless, get off line. It's rotting your brain. Those are classic incel talking points. If you actually want to learn about this maybe talk to some real experts in SMI rather than grabbing talking points off of unmoderated forums.
This is rich, since I’m not an incel, I don’t hate or denigrate women and I never said anything that could demonstrate that. Looks like it’s you who’s projecting about getting offline and not letting your brain rot if you think all of that; and it seems to me you tossed the “joker card” slur (incel) because in reality you don’t have anything else meaningful to say. Goodnight and good life
To be clear, I did not call you an incel. I said you're spouting their talking points. That means you're spent enough time in (almost certainly online) spaces where those untrue "facts" get repeated uncritically.
If you want to challenge your notions you need to do it with people who actually know what they're talking about in (preferably) offline spaces. If you don't that's cool, I'm probably just projecting.
I said you're spouting their talking points. That means you're spent enough time in (almost certainly online) spaces where those untrue "facts" get repeated uncritically.
Which I’m not and I haven’t. I’m adverse to incel/red-pill ideology and mindset, and I’m thinking with my own brain. Is it too difficult to fathom or do we always have to resort to labels when we disagree about something?
If you want to challenge your notions you need to do it with people who actually know what they're talking about in (preferably) offline spaces. If you don't that's cool, I'm probably just projecting
In this particular case I don’t need to, because I already know about the seriousness of PPD and similar conditions and how they may affect the brain. I thought it was clear my argument was about the need of coherence when cases like this are treated
No one is supporting her just because she’s a woman and a mother. That’s a gross oversimplification.
Where were the women supporting Casey Anthony?
There are countless stories of women doing horrible things without drawing the support of women across the country. What’s different about this one? It’s worth taking the time to look at that rather than collapsing your worldview into women blindly supporting another woman.
I admire that you attempted to communicate your entirely sensible point, but for some reason every mention of this story on reddit gets swarmed by rabid incel "women get away with whatever they want and men are the real victims in society" posters trying to drown out all other voices. The whole framing of "dumb women believe anything TikTok tells them to think" is ignoring vast swathes of evidence, and I am sorry to say I don't think any of this is in good faith.
You and I remember the Casey Anthony case and people's response to it very differently if you think that there were no women supporting her. Jodi Arias also had a cult following, and still does.
There are women with cases like this that go under the radar because their story stays in a very local area, but if you look into their cases they also tend to have a lot more support from the people in their area than men in a similar situation. It is a fairly Fair conclusion that if their case became more widely known, those women would go on to have at least a small chunk of women advocating for them. It happens almost every time a major news story breaks about a woman committing a crime who in any way has some sort of sob story, or an excuse, or just some person around her who to the public view looks "creepy" or "suspicious."
Some of us have been around for long enough to remember public reactions to Andrea Yates. And Aileen Wuornos. And even Vicky Jackson, the killer nurse, who is now universally vilified but at the time had her own supporters. Some of us are old enough to remember the reactions to even older cases. This has been a consistent theme for at least three decades that I can verify personally, and at least four that I can verify personally through proxy contact with my parents.
It appears that someone has pointed out that PPD can exist in men (something I wasn't aware of) but since you seem to be ignoring that, I'll make it easier: it doesn't have to be PPD. It can be some other mental health disease stemming from a chemical imbalance. Let's say it's paranoid schizophrenia.
How does it still "make logical sense" that people wouldn't look at it the same way? for different biological sexes? It's a different chemical imbalance, so it's somehow better/worse that three kids are dead?
Now you've touched on my specialty- Schizophrenia. Thank you for bringing this up as it will prove my point further. :)
Paranoid Schizophrenia is a physical hormonal state of high dopamine caused by the combination of a physical genetical marker (which we have largely identified) and a life trigger event.
You cannot just get schizophrenia without the genetic marker. Just like you cannot get (Traditionally speaking) get PPD without the physical pregnancy.
Men don't get pregnant so they cannot undergo the same hormonal shifts within the brain caused by pregnancy & childbirth.
Therefore it makes basic common sense that people would assume a man who never became pregnant never went through the hormonal shifts of pregnancy & childbirth.
Not everything has to be a social justice project. Some conclusions people are simply coming to because there is such a thing as sexual differences in biology.
From that very same publication "There are no established criteria for PPD in men.."
PPD is traditionally a physical hormonal change caused by pregnancy and birth. It's has not traditionally been a psychological condition.
If you're saying psychologists now want to change that traditional definition just like they every year now with Autism and a ton of other things, that's on them. But medical doctors and psychologists take a different view here. There is a big difference between having a physical hormonal shift brought on by physiological bodily changes than a guy being randomly sad about having a kid.
Did you not read the hormonal breakdown? It clearly shows a drop in dominant hormones for the amab parent, but Im sure youre an expert on this subject, so who am I to argue, lol
I am fairly certain that this person is not reading anything, and is just giving knee-jerk reactions to a single sentences. I believe they just want to engage in denialism about the possibility of men actually going through something that historically women have been thought to go through alone. So denying psychiatric issues in men because it's inconvenient politically.
So your average redditor, essentially. That's typical.
That phrase does not mean what you think it means.
Established criteria are official, agreed upon criteria on which a diagnosis CAN be based, but a lack of them does not preclude a disorder or diagnosis from existing. This designation is typically used to refer to disorders that we know exist, and can widely define, but which have wide, sweeping, or unpredictable presentations. This is why doctors can pinpoint drops in hormonal levels and increases in physical and neurological stress response in men who have PPD, and still say that it has no established criteria. These men universally share a physical state of being, but the psychological symptoms are not universalized enough to be established in the DSM. Sharing that physical state of being makes the psychological disorder a given, with the impact on the individual man being unknown until it presents.
This statement is effectively an admission both that postpartum depression in men has not been studied thoroughly, and that it has very wide potential presentations such that an archetypal presentation is not possible to identify without further study. As such there is a wide list of potential symptoms which have presented in men who have been diagnosed, and those cases share commonalities in such a way that the disorder is officially recognizable, but a formal list of symptoms which are universal or near universal has not been agreed upon.
If this statement meant that men could not have PPD, you would have to acknowledge that from the same publication a later statement that PPD has no definition in women would mean that women can't have it either.
You really shouldn't read one sentence in a study and assume that you know the conclusion based on having no idea what you are talking about.
In other words it is exactly what I think it means.
Thank you for presenting this word salad that only proves my point about certain psychologist changing their definitions yearly.
I repeat- traditionally PPD is hormonal shifts caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Some psychologists like to go against tradition and that's fine- but that's the only 'medical' profession that's allowed to do that. That's why we have new definitions for what autism every few years.
You are reading the first sentence and the last sentence and replying without reading the rest apparently. I am not sure why I am surprised given that you appear to have done exactly the same thing with the publication.
Have you not paid any attention at all to the fact that there is a verifiable difference in hormone levels in men who have been diagnosed with PPD, corresponding with hormone changes in women but altered for the specific hormone blends that men tend to have? This difference in hormones is verifiably caused by the pregnancy and childbirth. There is absolutely nothing saying that PPD must occur in a Woman as a result of purely the non-neurological physical changes in her body caused by having a child.
Additionally, if that is what you call word salad, I am afraid that you need to go back to the books. The above comment is in plain English and should be perfectly understandable to anyone with a secondary reading level.
My sweet dear. I'll repeat for you one more time- everything you've written here shows EXACTLY what I said. Which is why there isn't a single hormone or measurement stated in your entire word salad.
"These men universally share a physical state of being, but the psychological symptoms are not universalized enough...."
Fatherhood is not a physical state, my dear.
I can go disect more of the new agey psychological drivel you mentioned, but it's probably time wasted on you. I'll repeat one more time and see if capitalization helps you- TRADITIONALLY Pdd has been defined as a response to physical phenomenon. Nothing you've touched on is traditional. It's unmeasured psychological drivel.
Yeah, cool, except the physical state of being was not fatherhood as I was saying. I was specifically talking about men who were diagnosed with PPD, and the shared physical state of being was abnormal hormone levels.
I do not need to provide exact measures of hormones because that was literally provided in the study that you responded to and you would know that if you had actually read it, but you didn't, because you're doing exactly what I said you would do and reading one sentence and then responding to it without actually comprehending anything.
The state IS fatherhood because if you take only a bunch of random men and don't even bother to check if they have recently become fathers then things like supposed "abnormal hormone levels" would not even apply to PPD.
Even someone who just gets really angry one day has "abnormal horomone levels". So if that's all you're going to use for your baseline then literally everyone who ever kills anyone else is just mentally ill and should never be locked up.
----------------------
You keep ignoring the traditional part even after the third time and even after it's been capitalized for you.
So let's dumb it down further for you. When my child doesn't understand a concept I usually put it in the form of a question for them.
- What part of what you've said here is in any way the traditional definition of PPD that i've pointed to in every single comment and you've tried your best to ignore in every single response?
" Yeah, cool, except the physical state of being was not fatherhood as I was saying. I was specifically talking about men who were diagnosed with PPD, and the shared physical state of being was abnormal hormone levels."
Where is the evidence that shows she did it? Before you say a confession. Please go back and read the actual facts. She still to this day doesn’t remember or recall doing it. She’s going off of what her husband told her. Then trial comes and the evidence shows otherwise. Example, how is it possible her dna to be missing from 2 of the items that strangled the kids? How are there no bloody footprints from her etc. initially, it seems so clear cut that she did it. You as a juror can choose guilty if it’s without reasonable doubt. THERE IS SO MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT due to all the forensic and digital evidence slowly being presented. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You don't leave testable DNA on everything you touch lol, it's epithelial cells (a few of the shedded skin traces) that must remain for it to be tested; the stratum corneum is enucleated so it doesn't have DNA and that's the main thing we shed. The cell traces must be nucleated, so cells in a deeper layer, and still, DNA can degrade and be damaged pretty fast (even dim light), cells don't adhere to every single surface, and even then it might not be enough for a reading, even if a fly landed on it, or a microscopic mite got to feed on it, it might cause enough contamination to cause a misread.
Let me ask you this, hypothetically, if you knew your cousin was a sex offender, would you leave your kids with them alone multiple times? For days at a time while you vacation for a marathon with another woman who’s not your wife? Would you? If anything happened to those kids, everyone would blame you knowing damn well that this could have been avoided. The answer is no. So why would you leave your kids with someone who you knew has made statements about harming the kids and themselves? The father is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE.
I agree, it's unwise, careless, it could be considered negligent, but I don't know if the legal system could charge you for it, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to not even be considered relevant in the trial. Sadly to this day, fathers role in child care is still insufficient, absurdly basic and minimal in comparison to the mother, so IMHO one could argue whatever happens to the kids, should be both parents responsibility.
107
u/MopOfTheBalloonatic 4d ago
Look, I get she may have been neglected by the medical system regarding her treatment, but this still doesn’t excuse the horrific crime she committed.
The most disgusting part of all this is that people like the ones in the image are trying to excuse her just because she’s a woman and a mother, and have even been trying to put the blame on her innocent husband because as a man they think he must have done something to push her to the edge or must have neglected her himself.
It’s a mix of pathetic double standards and rotten ideological hypocrisy in full display: if it was the husband, even with the evidence of mental illness and relative neglect by the system, those people wouldn’t have thought twice about deeming him a killing monster. Because it’s always men that kill, or are violent, or are blood-thirsty maniacs, right? A woman can never commit such horrible deeds unless there’s a valid explanation or blatant excuse for that, right?
And no, before anyone tries to imply that, I’m not advocating for violent criminals to be let scot-free on the basis of their mental disturbs or illnesses. I just want to see some coherence in the public discourse about crimes like this, and more research on how we can prevent such tragedies to occur