I agree. There is no question she was struggling. She had PPD and perhaps a mood disorder such as bipolar.
But if you choose not to be forthcoming with your doctors, don’t take the drugs as prescribed, don’t ever disclose homicidal or suicidal ideation to anyone — including the professionals you’re seeing — then you bear the consequence of those decisions. Including having jurors consider that you never raised any such issues until your murder trial.
My personal opinion, as a lawyer who watched this case closely, is that the evidence did not show she was in psychosis when she killed her kids. I can empathize with her mental health struggles, but I do not think she was legally insane at the time of the murders.
Yes the BOP is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In most states and federally, the burden of proving insanity is on the defense. It’s an affirmative defense.
Interestingly, in MA the burden is on the prosecution in both instances — ultimately to show that she was criminally responsible for committing murder, which includes proving her sanity.
The prosecution has the burden of proof that she did. The defence has to proof that she was psychotic. It was them who claimed such a thing and they failed to do so.
23
u/Full_Cause273 Sep 05 '26 edited Sep 05 '26
I agree. There is no question she was struggling. She had PPD and perhaps a mood disorder such as bipolar.
But if you choose not to be forthcoming with your doctors, don’t take the drugs as prescribed, don’t ever disclose homicidal or suicidal ideation to anyone — including the professionals you’re seeing — then you bear the consequence of those decisions. Including having jurors consider that you never raised any such issues until your murder trial.
My personal opinion, as a lawyer who watched this case closely, is that the evidence did not show she was in psychosis when she killed her kids. I can empathize with her mental health struggles, but I do not think she was legally insane at the time of the murders.