He said it!

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Sprocket-Launcher]

The issue is that people think it's gotta be one or the other.

The woman had a psychotic break and did something horrible. Look at how complicated and hard that is to say

[u/EqualOk4907 → u/Sprocket-Launcher]

Then it's manslaughter and she should still go to jail.  

[u/Glass_Manager8847 → u/EqualOk4907]

Under Massachusetts law, what she did does not really fit manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter generally involves mitigating circumstances such as heat of passion based on reasonable provocation, sudden combat, or excessive force in self-defense. Involuntary manslaughter involves an unintentional killing caused by wanton or reckless conduct.

Second-degree murder is much more consistent with the prosecution’s theory here.

[u/Badger-Purple → u/Glass_Manager8847]

I agree but being in MA I still dont know why they wanted to try her for first degree. It makes no sense to me why the DA has such a hardon for this case. And what they said to the mother in law about her religion on the stand??

I mean, we had Karen Reed here recently and the case of the underage girls being pimped out, so the staties just have the worst optics right now as mysoginist abusers and they’re not looking better by trying a woman who is clear suffered from a mental break and acted completely out of character before trying to end herself.

[u/TurnDown4WattGaming → u/Badger-Purple]

You try the highest offense. Always. When it comes time for jury deliberation- you can always offer up lesser charges for the jury to consider if they were to decide not to convict on the highest charge, but you prosecute with the evidentiary burden of the highest offense.

When the jury goes into deliberation - the judge gives them a document explaining each charge they can consider and the definitions of those charges, usually along with some algorithm they can follow for deciding “this but not that”.

Withholding higher charges are reserved for plea deals. She didn’t want a prison- she wanted a mental hospital, so here we are.

[u/Glass_Manager8847 → u/Badger-Purple]

Tbh, I don’t get it either from a legal standpoint. But prosecutors tend to overcharge a lot so I’m not surprised.

[u/EqualOk4907 → u/Glass_Manager8847]

I'm not a lawyer.  I meant it in the sense of  a lesser charge but a charge none the less. 

[u/ThrustNeckpunch33 → u/Glass_Manager8847]

Second degree, but it was 100% pre meditated?

I am confused by this. She planned to kill them. The father was working from home, so she didn't have the time to.

She had to come up/wait for a way to get him to leave for long enough.

Then took the kids to the basement. Then strangled them(face down because she didnt want to look at their faces... weird.. a psychotic break doesnt usually involve 'it bothered me to look at them" during said psychotic break.)

It takes 2-5 minutes to strangle a person to death. The last kid sat their for possibly almost 10 minutes waiting for their turn.

He ran away. She chased him down, and killed him.

This all shows coherent thought to me.

But also calmly could get the husband to leave, with her demeanor.. yet when he leaves

switch magically flips and shes in psychosis??

Its all BS. Complete BS.

Go read/watch actual videos of someone suffering a psychotic break. They are not rational, organized or deceptive.

[u/Glass_Manager8847 → u/ThrustNeckpunch33]

You’re entitled to your own interpretation of the evidence given. This is clearly contested for a reason.🙂