I’m concentrating on one particular point because it changes simple manslaughter to premeditated murder. I’m not considering the mental illness defense; that can come later. That may or may not change how the case should be prosecuted. We can discuss that later.
I just want to understand this one point: Are you at all troubled that she put research into how to kill her children?
I’m troubled by the entire case, every aspect of it.
Given the evidence in this case, I don’t think even a jury full of liberal minded people would be able to find for manslaughter under the Massachusetts definition.
People suffering psychosis can certainly be capable of premeditated planning and methodical carrying out of a crime. They can be delusional. I think she should, and will be, found not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.
(I heard someone today suggest that instead of lowering the charge, the DA might go for 1st degree murder again; and he strikes me as someone who thinks he’s right and could very well do it again. But I don’t believe they could ever get a conviction on that in this case.)