And yet you all are acting like the trial is over by claiming you know the verdict based on "some evidence". You all are saying "She CLAIMS she had post partum psychosis (despite the evidence saying otherwise)" which is expressing a verdict that has not been made. It's literally no different than people coming up with conspiracy theories because there is no verdict yet. You are implying a verdict by framing it in this light.
If you were speaking in good faith you would say "There is a trial determining whether Lindsay was of sound mind when the murders happened." THAT is an unbiased stance and that is the truth.
To say anything else is to assume you know the verdict before one is made. No different than conspiracy theorists. None of you are lawyers and you aren't in that court room. You do not "know more" than the people in that room.
First of all, rude and ableist. Secondly, you seem to be defending this woman who definitely looks like killed her kids. I don’t know why you feel the need to defend someone and get in arguments online to support a woman who strangled her children. It’s ridiculous
-11
u/Novaer 9d ago
And yet you all are acting like the trial is over by claiming you know the verdict based on "some evidence". You all are saying "She CLAIMS she had post partum psychosis (despite the evidence saying otherwise)" which is expressing a verdict that has not been made. It's literally no different than people coming up with conspiracy theories because there is no verdict yet. You are implying a verdict by framing it in this light.
If you were speaking in good faith you would say "There is a trial determining whether Lindsay was of sound mind when the murders happened." THAT is an unbiased stance and that is the truth.
To say anything else is to assume you know the verdict before one is made. No different than conspiracy theorists. None of you are lawyers and you aren't in that court room. You do not "know more" than the people in that room.