The prosecution completely goofed in their opening statements and failed to prove several major pillars of their original case. I think it should have been bifurcated from the beginning. The prosecution only had two cudgels they wielded over and over. Cruelty and premeditation. They had no answers for her mental state. They got blown out by a lot of witness testimony. You're either mad as hell and ignored the evidence or if you paid attention to the trial, you know there's reasonable doubt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2/#50110253)

Be more specific.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2/#50110258)

She obviously premeditated sending Patrick out so he would be gone a while. But also Pat would randomly go skiing and leave her alone with the kids for the weekend. She could have easily done it then but she was probably too loopy to foresee the eventuality of her being alone with them.

You need to watch Dr. Reznik's testimony. This is the leader in the field of criminal psychiatry, so much so that the prosecution experts all cited his work. He's the GOAT at this shit. Believe him or not but he's the most prestigious expert in the field.

He talks extensively about psychosis and how it manifests. It's a difficult subject because little is known about it in general. But Reznik testified she had delusion beliefs that she could not unthink. She felt a powerful force overcome her that she needed to kill herself and that she had to protect the kids in Heaven before she could die.

Believe whatever you want but there's a lot of evidence that she was not in her right mind. Testimony about her beliefs include contradictions and falsehoods, but not about things not material to the crime. Instead, this can be taken as evidence that she was psychotic at the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5899869&forum_id=2/#50110262)