Author Topic: Mother kills 5 kids convicted (Read 738 times)

Maverick · « **on:** March 15, 2002, 12:18:47 PM »

I an rather surprised to see no posts about this. The jury obviously didn't buy any of the insanity defense with only 4 hours to reach a verdict.

What do ya think should happen now?? The trial is in the sentencing phase and the death penalty IS a possibliity.

Final note here is that she wasn't tried on all 5 deaths, only 2 of them. I guess the prosecution was holding 3 back for the future???? Can't understand that tactic as this was a single mass murder without a significant spread of time or distance between them.

FWIW, I see no reason this woman should ever see the light of day or even be breathing.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:27:41 PM »

I don't believe she is going to be sentanced to death. She was mentally ill and under the care of a Psychiatrist. Her husband also knew of the issues and still felt it apropriate to leave her alone with the children. I'd much rather see the husband brought up on negligence charges and the Psychiatrist (psychologist?) brought up on malpractice charges than to agressively press for the death penalty on the wife.

The reason for only prosecuting 3 of the murders is in case there is a problem that results in an aquital. Since you can only be tried for the same crime once... it would be impossible to re-try the case if she was found "not guilty". Thusly, they broke it into two cases. If they fail on the first, they will get it together and try again on the second.

The reason this all sounds a little contrived is because you might be used to watching the complete ineptness that was the OJ trial. Seems these D.A.s are being just a tad bit more careful.

AKDejaVu

NATEDOG · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:37:02 PM »

she was tried for 3 of the deaths so that they could charge capital murder, and if she got off, they could try her for the other two. Which is what they should have done in the OJ case. They can do it like that to get around the double jeapardy law.
Both the prosecution and defense said this chick was crazy, but in Texas, crazy or not, you have to prove that you didn't know right from wrong, and she did.
I have been following this case close, and I think she should get death, and I also think her husband deserves jail time.

NATEDOG · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:41:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
... the Psychiatrist (psychologist?) brought up on malpractice charges .......

I would have agreed with that before I really looked into the case... It turns out that she was on the proper medication, but she and her husband decided she should stop taking the medication so that she could get pregnant again. That's another reason why the husband should face jail time.

Fatty · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:49:57 PM »

Quote

so that she could get pregnant again

That's a pretty frightening thought.

aknimitz · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:55:34 PM »

Holy smokes R U serious NATE? I missed that (about forgoing medication to get pregnant). SHEEHS!??!

Nim

Ripsnort · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:55:53 PM »

She will live a far worse life by dying in prison with those kids on her conscience, (and inmates reminding her daily of it) than she would by putting her to death. I a stong supporter of the death penalty, but this is one of those cases that you want the person to dying slowly, painfully, via her mind.

One of the purposes of the Death penalty is to ensure that the person in question is no longer a threat to society...I don't believe she is a threat to society, she was just a threat to her kids.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2002, 12:58:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NATEDOG

I would have agreed with that before I really looked into the case... It turns out that she was on the proper medication, but she and her husband decided she should stop taking the medication so that she could get pregnant again. That's another reason why the husband should face jail time.

I hadn't heard that either Nate. Damn...

mrfish · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2002, 01:12:03 PM »

i don't get all the fuss about sparing her because she was insane. is there a softer nation anywhere? even france?

if she can't function, then get her the f--- out of society. who cares why she did it: she did it, period....she just lost life's lottery and got stuck with some bad genes - that's her tough luck, not society's.

we don't have the time or money to keep these people shelved.
we don't need to spend the next 50 years nursing and trying to understand some psycho. 5 sec with a firing squad and let's get on with our lives, why all the showbusiness and drama?

i keep hearing all these people testify that she was a great mother....no, she killed her kids, she wasn't a great mother. what does it take to be a bad mother?

Curval · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2002, 01:35:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
She will live a far worse life by dying in prison with those kids on her conscience, (and inmates reminding her daily of it) than she would by putting her to death. I a stong supporter of the death penalty, but this is one of those cases that you want the person to dying slowly, painfully, via her mind.

One of the purposes of the Death penalty is to ensure that the person in question is no longer a threat to society...I don't believe she is a threat to society, she was just a threat to her kids.

I agree 100%

Eagler · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2002, 01:43:46 PM »

is anyone who kills someone not nuts to some degree ...

never understood the insanity plea ...

LIFE! our tax dollars well spent

batdog · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2002, 01:52:43 PM »

Well.... personaly I feel the whole death penality thing is just feel good politics. It doesnt really deture anybody from killing...it just gives the masses the feeling that SOMETHING has been done to protect them. It would work if they executed every murder out there... that WOULD be a deterant.

xBAT

midnight Target · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2002, 02:36:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
She will live a far worse life by dying in prison with those kids on her conscience, (and inmates reminding her daily of it) than she would by putting her to death. I a stong supporter of the death penalty, but this is one of those cases that you want the person to dying slowly, painfully, via her mind.

One of the purposes of the Death penalty is to ensure that the person in question is no longer a threat to society...I don't believe she is a threat to society, she was just a threat to her kids.

The jury agreed with you Rip...She got life, with possible parole in 40 years.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2002, 02:46:34 PM »

I think the death penalty would be more efective if it didn't take 10-20 years after convition to finally fry em.

One thing I never understood was why give someone life in prison? If the purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate why go thru the trouble for lifers?

Eagler · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2002, 02:56:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
I think the death penalty would be more efective if it didn't take 10-20 years after convition to finally fry em.

One thing I never understood was why give someone life in prison? If the purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate why go thru the trouble for lifers?

so they can tie up our legal system with appeals - oh yeah and pay their lawyers with our taxes..