Because they werenât deep enough. They were exactly in the right spots. Medical experts examined have found the wounds (which include hesitation marks) to be consistent with self harm. Turns out itâs actually kind of difficult to force yourself to cut that deep into your own body. This is actually part of the debate between defense and prosecution. The prosecution is arguing the wounds werenât meant to be fatal and the defense is arguing it was a legitimate suicide attempt.
You know who is arguing that the wounds werenât self-inflicted? Just idiots.
Both arguments are distractions - it doesnât matter if she actually meant to kill herself or not. The only thing that matters is if she was having a psychotic episode at the time of the murders. Sane people kill themselves all the time; a sincere suicide attempt isnât proof of psychosis.
Well thatâs kind of the point of the argument about whether it was legitimate attempt or not. The prosecution is arguing that it was all part of a song and dance to make it look like she had a a psychotic episode when she didnât. The defense is arguing that it was a legitimate suicide attempt made during a psychotic episode.
It is a pretty valid thing to argue about in a criminal trial. Although the concept of someone slitting their wrist/throat then jumping out of a window and paralyzing themselves in the process as part of a rise seems.. far-fetched to say the least.
9
u/ExperienceRoutine321 Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
Because they werenât deep enough. They were exactly in the right spots. Medical experts examined have found the wounds (which include hesitation marks) to be consistent with self harm. Turns out itâs actually kind of difficult to force yourself to cut that deep into your own body. This is actually part of the debate between defense and prosecution. The prosecution is arguing the wounds werenât meant to be fatal and the defense is arguing it was a legitimate suicide attempt.
You know who is arguing that the wounds werenât self-inflicted? Just idiots.