The judge also said, to the members of the jury to discount evidence and testimony that doesn’t fit.
The jury wasn’t prepared to deal with a psychopath. Her defense should have been completely ignored.
The prosecution should have played the underlying evil up a lot more, not just closing remarks.
The prosecution should have presented some uncontradicted evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they didn't have, they should have waited to prosecute until they did.
I couldn’t agree more. I wasn’t there, and I didn’t try it, but it seemed like the Prosecutors were caught a bit off guard. That’s always a tough one to call because sometimes they know their cases are weak and do the best with what they have.
It just always renews my faith in the system when I see jurors who take it seriously.
Do a search on google.com for "sociopath vs psychopath".
There are a number of write-ups on the two different conditions ~ degrees of the same condition ~ take your pick.
I like to think of sociopaths as acting before they think it out very much, and psychopaths thinking about it in considerable detail and figuring out how to act in the wrong way.
You might want to read about Aspbergers syndrome ~ in great detail ~ there are variations in that condition that are kind of frightening.
One alternative is this woman is too stupid to be allowed to run around loose.