Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

starkid

Deleted User wrote: »

Chris Benoit killed himself.

We have no idea what would have happened if he went to court.

the point is, he's been written off by society and the organisation he was hugely involved in because of what he does.

Yet here is a woman that many people are giving a pass to.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Please god i never get into a mental space where i am deeply invested in defending one type of child killer while remembering the other, bad type of child killer

Some contortions, those

Please God I never get into a mental space where I make comments about something I know f*ck all about like many are doing here.

py2006

Faugheen wrote: »

Please God I never get into a mental space where I make comments about something I know f*ck all about like many are doing here.

Wow, didn't know you were directly involved with this case

castletownman

For a small country that we would all regard as safe to live in, there does seem to be a disproportionately high amount of family suicide/murders or family annihilation incidence. This one, and two others, last year, alone. And I distinctly remember two happening in Wexford too that were disturbing as well.

It has to be an off-shoot of a shortage of mental health services and expertise. Which is ironic, considering mental health is such a fad among celebs and social media influencers alike.

starkid

Deleted User wrote: »

Please god i never get into a mental space where i am deeply invested in defending one type of child killer while remembering the other, bad type of child killer

Some contortions, those

of course they have a background in the legal profession. it makes alot more sense. Some legal people will jump through all these mental gymansitics to justify things to themselves.

jk23

jk23 wrote: »

Ok that's your opinion. We will wait and see.

Lol

Purple is a Fruit

I'm seeing so much views on social media that are just one way or the other (I know, what a surprise).

She murdered her three children ffs - there's nothing wrong with finding it difficult to empathise. And some right arseholes are throwing insults at people for simply expressing the view that they can't understand why she was not found guilty.

But it was due to severe mental illness - so all the revenge stuff is too simplistic also. Whether people want to admit it or not, severe mental illness can cause people to do terrible things which they wouldn't do in their right mind.

You can think both.

And while most of the time I despise "if you swapped the sexes yadda yadda" I think that's very relevant here - Alan Hawe was absolutely slated, and people didn't want to countenance that he was mentally ill (despite having no reason not to consider the idea). What he did was utterly monstrous obviously but it was as if people wanted him to have been sane when he did it, when the chances of him being out of his mind were so high.

jk23

bubblypop wrote: »

Lol

I don't find it very funny??

*Changed after reading mod note on page 1

Spanish Eyes

Revenge for what?

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Wow, didn't know you were directly involved with this case

Tbf, you don't know if he is or not.
He does understand the law, unlike most posters on here.

Curse These Metal Hands

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not gender biased at all. I do a lot of reading on these cases and have a background in the legal profession.

The fact you are so keen to point out how men are being treated differently and are oppressed using completely different cases to this one, which you have clearly just read the headline for, tells me that only one person has an agenda here and it's you.

If you are so keen to listen to the experts, then I suggest you actually read what they said here.

Also, you can read Andrew McGinley's statement too.

That wasn't my point at all, not sure how you thought it was, and never mentioned oppression. I'm of the opinion that both were suffering mental illness. You're the only one saying one is just evil and the other not and completely ignoring expert testimony. It can only be concluded that you are making a distinction based on gender.

Faugheen

starkid wrote: »

of course they have a background in the legal profession. it makes alot more sense. Some legal people will jump through all these mental gymansitics to justify things to themselves.

I'm reading about the case at hand and yet you tell me it's all about mental gymnastics?

John Carroll was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his son in 2005 and, if you read about the case, you'd agree with that verdict too.

The only people who are jumping through hoops are those who are finding ways to undermine the justice system like always seems to be the case in any murder case no matter the verdict.

I also read Andrew McGinley's statement and it confirmed to me that my thoughts about this case hold up.

Why are you undermining the man who actually lost everything in this case?

py2006

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

And while most of the time I despise "if you swapped the sexes yadda yadda" I think that's very relevant here - Alan Hawe was absolutely slated, and people didn't want to countenance that he was mentally ill (despite having no reason not to consider the idea). What he did was utterly monstrous obviously but it was as if people wanted him to have been sane when he did it, when the chances of him being out of his mind were so high.

This.

Anybody who even began to question his mental state got absolutely LAMBASTED at the time. He was a monster, simple as. No sympathy or even questions of his mental state were tolerated.

monkeybutter

Faugheen wrote: »

Read his statement and you'll understand why he agrees with the verdict.

People are all about showing sympathy to Andrew McGinley but yet don't seem to want to take his statement into account before mouthing off.

He's absolutely the biggest loser in this but completely ignoring his point of view shows people don't actually care about the details in this case.

I read it and find it hard to reason he is off blaming the hse, obviously just can't come to terms with it

There's always someone to blame, in this case his wife

py2006

bubblypop wrote: »

Tbf, you don't know if he is or not.
He does understand the law, unlike most posters on here.

I doubt he would be posting here if he was.

Ellie2008

namloc1980 wrote: »

The jury had an impossible job. They were basically told what verdict to arrive at by the judge. They did come back at one point and said could the consider the verdict separately for the 3 kids - I suspect they had some debate on the murder of the eldest child in particular who she picked up from school after killing the other two and she had plenty of time to consider her actions.

I can’t link the article but I’m almost certain I have this right. She said she was sitting chatting to her eldest son about the movie he was watching & she thought to herself I can’t do this, this is awful but then thought I have to ive killed his siblings what will he think. So according to that testimony she didn’t kill him because she thought she’d damaged him, she killed him because of what he would think of her when he found out she’d killed his siblings. I can’t understand why his killing wasn’t distinguished based on that statement & the lapse in time. The sandwich detail made be shudder. Imagine watching a kid buy his last meal. Horrendous.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Tbf, you don't know if he is or not.
He does understand the law, unlike most posters on here.

Theres a massive gulf between understanding the legal procedures through which an act as heinous as this can be somehow magically removed from the person carrying it out and actually agreeing that this is a good thing

Add in that the person can get well again and all is fine and dandy, nobody to blame for this one lads and you would have to really be stretching to not expect many to have a problem with it.

Who benefits from the removal of culpability and consequence for criminal acts?

Not society, not victims

Faugheen

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

That wasn't my point at all, not sure how you thought it was, and never mentioned oppression. I'm of the opinion that both were suffering mental illness. You're the only one saying one is just evil and the other not and completely ignoring expert testimony. It can only be concluded that you are making a distinction based on gender.

You brought up gender bias. Not me. That says to me that you have the bias in this situation.

You accused me of gender bias by bringing up two completely different cases with two completely different outcomes. I have already mentioned another case where a man was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his son and I agreed with the verdict.

So are you still going to push with this gender bias nonsense or are you going to offer me an apology for your ranting and raving with zero basis?

starkid

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm reading about the case at hand and yet you tell me it's all about mental gymnastics?

John Carroll was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his son in 2005 and, if you read about the case, you'd agree with that verdict too.

The only people who are jumping through hoops are those who are finding ways to undermine the justice system like always seems to be the case in any murder case no matter the verdict.

I also read Andrew McGinley's statement and it confirmed to me that my thoughts about this case hold up.

Why are you undermining the man who actually lost everything in this case?

and i think you're undermining society by holding such views. John Carroll can also be berated by society for what he did.

starkid

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm reading about the case at hand and yet you tell me it's all about mental gymnastics?

John Carroll was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his son in 2005 and, if you read about the case, you'd agree with that verdict too.

The only people who are jumping through hoops are those who are finding ways to undermine the justice system like always seems to be the case in any murder case no matter the verdict.

I also read Andrew McGinley's statement and it confirmed to me that my thoughts about this case hold up.

Why are you undermining the man who actually lost everything in this case?

and i think you're undermining society by holding such views. John Carroll can also be berated by society for what he did. I respect his statement, however i disagree with his commentary on infanticide. It takes many forms and would be just as hurtful to many families who don't share his mercy.

you're doing what many in the legal profession do, holding it up as some sort of infallible institution helkd together by learned scholars and masters of the universe,a world that is not full of hypocrisy and self serving people on a gravy train of self justification.

You'll never be able to convince me and many others. Just like the Cortes disgrace today and Nolan. The law can be an ass as we all know.

The_Dark_Lord

This verdict is just more proof that we live in a feminine-primary social order. If it had been the husband, I very much doubt the jury would've given the same verdict. More importantly, it's just another incident in a long line, where children have been failed. RIP to those lovely little souls.

Purple is a Fruit

py2006 wrote: »

This.

Anybody who even began to question his mental state got absolutely LAMBASTED at the time. He was a monster, simple as. No sympathy or even questions of his mental state were tolerated.

All sorts of stuff was being stated as fact about him with zero evidence.

I was told I must be one of those men who's ok with hitting women - you know, that kinda gas-lighting shyte.

For starters, I'm a woman.

And all I said was that we don't know whether he was abusive, and that it could have been due to a mental breakdown.

Curse These Metal Hands

Faugheen wrote: »

You brought up gender bias. Not me. That says to me that you have the bias in this situation.

You accused me of gender bias by bringing up two completely different cases with two completely different outcomes. I have already mentioned another case where a man was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his son and I agreed with the verdict.

So are you still going to push with this gender bias nonsense or are you going to offer me an apology for your ranting and raving with zero basis?

This all started because you couldn't offer reasons why Dr. Kennedy's assessment of Alan Hawe was wrong only "he was just a dick, end of. "

Sounds like you didn't read up enough as your were clearly unaware of Dr. Kennedy's assessment and now just have your back up. Mental illness can effect anyone regardless of gender, whether you believe it or not.

Faugheen

py2006 wrote: »

Wow, didn't know you were directly involved with this case

I'm not, but I know the law.

People talk about the expert testimonies being ignored when aiming sh*t at me but yet are clearly trying to tell me about the law when they don't know it and I have a better understanding.

To provide some balance, just because the jury came to this conclusion doesn't mean they believed her, but that's all the evidence suggested. The reason for the judge's charge to the jury is to ensure that they make their decisions based on the law and not on emotive or prejudicial thoughts. This is the case in any trial. The fact they deliberated for so long in what looks to me like a cut and dry verdict shows this.

starkid

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres a massive gulf between understanding the legal procedures through which an act as heinous as this can be somehow magically removed from the person carrying it out and actually agreeing that this is a good thing

Add in that the person can get well again and all is fine and dandy, nobody to blame for this one lads and you would have to really be stretching to not expect many to have a problem with it.

Who benefits from the removal of culpability and consequence for criminal acts?

Not society, not victims

exactly and not one person who believes that society or victims benefit from decsions like this can articulate why they think that is the case.Nobody can answer your question. we had this debate on the other thread about IReland being lenient. The people like Faugheen can't actually say why they think this letter of the law, and upholding of judgements is good for society.

half the serial killers in the states fit the insanity model. Where does it end? Is it because she's the mother and all the symbolism it entails.

JackTC

The independent have made this interview with Andrew for premium members only which I think is in bad taste. Premium articles are things like celebrity interviews and secret weight loss tips.

https://www.independent.ie/news/interview-i-lost-everybody-that-day-even-though-dee-is-still-alive-andrew-mcginley-on-the-day-deirdre-morley-killed-theirthree-children-40450231.html

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I doubt he would be posting here if he was.

Why?
It's an anonymous board, there's no reason someone involved in this case isn't reading this thread or posting in it.
I've posted in threads were I have been involved in the topic being discussed.

seenitall

Some people in this thread must have forgotten how Alan Howe was eulogised as the pillar of his community at the funeral for himself and the 4 people he killed. Feminine-primary social order, ha.

Curse These Metal Hands

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not, but I know the law.

People talk about the expert testimonies being ignored when aiming sh*t at me but yet are clearly trying to tell me about the law when they don't know it and I have a better understanding.

To provide some balance, just because the jury came to this conclusion doesn't mean they believed her, but that's all the evidence suggested. The reason for the judge's charge to the jury is to ensure that they make their decisions based on the law and not on emotive or prejudicial thoughts. This is the case in any trial. The fact they deliberated for so long in what looks to me like a cut and dry verdict shows this.

An expert in law but cites The Sun and Irish Mirror as reliable sources. Anyway...

py2006

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not, but I know the law.

People talk about the expert testimonies being ignored when aiming sh*t at me but yet are clearly trying to tell me about the law when they don't know it and I have a better understanding.

How do you know others here don't have a knowledge of the law or indeed a better knowledge of it than you?