I don't think Lenamon was trying to mount a legal insanity defense at all. I think he likely wanted to pursue a plea deal and/or was looking towards mitigation in post-conviction sentencing -- namely, extreme emotional distress that rendered a diminished capacity. He has been blogging about mental health issues related to filicide. I believe he's trying to get out there what he feels is the best way to go for Casey's defense.
It sounds like, from the link someone posted earlier with his statement regarding his withdrawal from the case, that perhaps he wasn't given the freedom to perform his duties in a way that would be crucial to mounting a good EED mitigation presentation.
Stands to reason that Casey and/or Baez refused his proposed theories and perhaps intend to go with SODDI/cornfuzzle the jury with scientific testimony to try to create reasonable doubt. I think they are hellbent on going for a full-on not guilty verdict. It's certainly her right to do so, but in a case where there is so much overwhelming evidence of guilt, maybe not the smartest move. Casey/Baez are foolish to reject the expertise of this attorney.
I imagine the judge is going to question Casey again about representation to be certain she is on board and in full agreement with each of her counsel, including whomever the defense brings on board as the death-qualified attorney. He's well aware of the bizarre goings-on with the defense counsel.
Here is a link to the
post-conviction mitigating factors. I can see his having tried to go with:
921.0006(4)
(a) if she had agreed to a plea deal;
(c) (d) and (g) based on his filicidal diminished capacity theories;
(i) if she had cooperated and told LE the truth to resolve the case.
Sounds like a good plan to me, but I believe the defense will be similar to the Phil Spector defense team -- trying to overwhelm the jury with a multitude of experts. Good luck with that.
