Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not sure if Suzanne was prescribed anti-depressants when she had cancer but apparently in 2013 she had a "breakdown" or was diagnosed with Depression and she was "browbeaten" by BM almost every day, according to AM. It was at that time he was against her taking medication, and more recently against her trying medical marijuana.This one really bugs (you guys have no idea how much, as I am trying to remain ladylike and calm).
Pain is made worse by lack of serotonin in the brain. Pain uses up serotonin in the brain. Pain leads to depression. Depression is a terrible name for this brain condition.
In the English-speaking world, and beyond, "depression" is thought of as "melancholy or sadness." But there are literally hundreds of disorders of the body that are connected to down-regulation of serotonin which is what the SSRI's (their true name) are prescribed for, not just for mood states.
These drugs are not perceptibly "psychoactive." They are not LSD. Or even cannabis (although cannabis seems to help regulate endorphins and serotonin in some people).
SSRI's are frequently prescribed to cancer patients, not because they are in despair (which they may be), but because pain management and appetite management can be helped without massive doses of opioids. I bet BM would have no trouble with being prescribed a "pain pill" by a doctor - he sounds like one of those millions of people who think pain pills are what they need for pain (yep, they work -but they can also lead to lifelong addiction and abuse and while some SSRI's have neuro symptoms when people are coming off them, they are not sold on the street and abused the way oxycontin is). I wonder if BM was okay with Tylenol (a dangerous drug for pain management which some of you surely know).
Anyway, SSRI's don't always work for pain (CBD may be better) but they are certainly commonly prescribed to cancer patients to combat myriad symptoms of chemo.
And also now thanks to the opioid crisis doctors are very reluctant to prescribe a large amount of pain meds. So an antidepressant might have been a good alternative. Although like you said the benefit v. risk must be weighed against the neurological effects of coming off of them. I have a friend who took a very popular antidepressant for years and getting off of it caused withdrawal sickness just as bad as any opiate withdrawal. She weaned off of it slowly after she thought she was going to be ok without it and she still had months of feeling sick, sleepless nights, sweating and brain zaps! And then her depression came back worse than before. Maybe she was on it for too long but I think many people are if they need it. So maybe marijuana is a better option for cancer patients? I don’t know a lot about it but since it is a plant maybe it doesn’t have those bad withdrawal symptoms? All I know is it would be absolutely horrible to be in pain and depressed and the one person who should be doing whatever they can to help you is shaming you for needing something for pain relief. I would imagine that cancer in your lymph nodes is very painful! Not to mention all the side effects from chemotherapy. It’s good for increasing appetite and isn’t it helpful with nausea too? Poor Suzanne after surviving all of that...who could be that selfish & evil?! (That’s a hypothetical that most of us can answer!)This one really bugs (you guys have no idea how much, as I am trying to remain ladylike and calm).
Pain is made worse by lack of serotonin in the brain. Pain uses up serotonin in the brain. Pain leads to depression. Depression is a terrible name for this brain condition.
In the English-speaking world, and beyond, "depression" is thought of as "melancholy or sadness." But there are literally hundreds of disorders of the body that are connected to down-regulation of serotonin which is what the SSRI's (their true name) are prescribed for, not just for mood states.
These drugs are not perceptibly "psychoactive." They are not LSD. Or even cannabis (although cannabis seems to help regulate endorphins and serotonin in some people).
SSRI's are frequently prescribed to cancer patients, not because they are in despair (which they may be), but because pain management and appetite management can be helped without massive doses of opioids. I bet BM would have no trouble with being prescribed a "pain pill" by a doctor - he sounds like one of those millions of people who think pain pills are what they need for pain (yep, they work -but they can also lead to lifelong addiction and abuse and while some SSRI's have neuro symptoms when people are coming off them, they are not sold on the street and abused the way oxycontin is). I wonder if BM was okay with Tylenol (a dangerous drug for pain management which some of you surely know).
Anyway, SSRI's don't always work for pain (CBD may be better) but they are certainly commonly prescribed to cancer patients to combat myriad symptoms of chemo.
This would only have alleviated discomfort, not contributed to her getting better. My mom’s doctor recommended MMJ when she had terminal cancer and it was a godsend for pain management, though it didn’t improve her health. I am horrified that BM didn’t “allow” Suzanne this additional comfort - and they no one was able to override this controlling j*ckass.Can't believe this didn't come to my mind until now! This would not surprise me at all. How could you not want your wife to try any drug out there that could possibly help?
A fun but little known fact is lawyers love law so much we wrote our own body of law that governs the professional conduct of lawyers. (because more law is always better) but that scenario your describing is sadly not that uncommon especially in cases involving minors. Just generally A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. im going to paste the exact annotation because it explains it way more eloquently then I can:
"11. Lawyers are frequently asked to represent a client under circumstances in which a third person will compensate the lawyer, in whole or in part. The third person might be a relative or friend, an indemnitor (such as a liability insurance company) or a co-client (such as a corporation sued along with one or more of its employees). Because third-party payers frequently have interests that differ from those of the client, including interests in minimizing the amount spent on the representation and in learning how the representation is progressing, lawyers are prohibited from accepting or continuing such representations unless the lawyer determines that there will be no interference with the lawyer's independent professional judgment and there is informed consent from the client. See also Rule 5.4C. (prohibiting interference with a lawyer's professional judgment by one who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another).
· 12. Sometimes, it will be sufficient for the lawyer to obtain the client's informed consent regarding the fact of the payment and the identity of the third-party payer. If, however, the fee arrangement creates a conflict of interest for the lawyer, then the lawyer must comply with Rule. 1.7. The lawyer must also conform to the requirements of Rule 1.6 concerning confidentiality. Under Rule 1.7(a), a conflict of interest exists if there is significant risk that the lawyer's representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest in the fee arrangement or by the lawyer's responsibilities to the third-party payer (for example, when the third-party payer is a co-client). Under Rule 1.7(b), the lawyer may accept or continue the representation with the informed consent of each affected client, unless the conflict is nonconsentable under that paragraph. Under Rule 1.7(b), the informed consent must be confirmed in writing."
and Rule 1.7 in summary says If a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of the client
.... i think thats what you were trying to ask, if not let me know. we have like a ton more equally fun laws lol
Yeah, hopefully they take him down in a very public place both for the safety of his girls and for the increased shame it will give him.
Hello All;
As a former state trial judge doing criminal cases exclusively for over thirty years, I am making my initial foray onto this site. I have a lot of catching up to do but this comment about courts permitting LE to lie to get at the truth of a case was so overboard that I wish to correct its breath. Courts do not operate on the theory that the end justifies the means 'to get at the truth of a case'. It is OK for LE to tell a suspect that their fingerprint was found at the scene in an effort to get an admission or some statement for the suspect. Courts do not sanction lying in court to a judge or jury regarding facts.
Precisely. If he is not a sociopath pretending to have Christian faith, and if he is a member of a community of Christians, he must be experiencing tremendous stress.
snipped for focus
.
to piggyback off this Premeditation, being a process of the mind, is wholly subjective and hence not always susceptible to proof by direct evidence. It may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the event. It is not necessary for premeditation to exist for a specific length of time. While premeditation requires no specific period of time for deliberation, some amount of time must pass between the formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act.The answer is really complex. It would require indexing tens of thousands of homicide cases over a long period. And juries vary in their interpretation of law and of jury instructions.
What is important to remember is that while planning and gathering weapons is obviously a sign of premeditation, most cases are not that cut and dried.
Strangulation, for example, may result in a verdict of first degree murder, even if the killer had never consciously thought of murdering his/her victim. This is because at some point during strangulation, the victim is limp and unconscious (and in need of medical help). If the murderer continues to strangle, it's been ruled premeditated in some cases - because the victim's body sent a signal (limpness) that death was impending, the victim is no longer any kind of physical threat to the assailant, they have to continue to strangle for another 3-5 minutes (or more) to ensure death - they have plenty of time to reconsider and it's obvious that they are still consciously directing their hands to apply pressure.
Kicking someone who is down, kicking an unconscious person, leaving one's child in a hot car...all have been charged as premeditated (1st degree) murder, if the victim dies.
Smyrna hot car death: Father Dylan Levesque charged with murder
Conversely, Charles Manson was convicted of 1st degree murder almost entirely because of evidence that he was the "premeditator" of the killings - he wasn't even there.
If a person is engaging in a premeditated crime (such as robbery or the person went to a house to "beat down" a a victim) and the victim dies (even though there was no intent to kill the victim - it just "happened" in the course of another felony - that's often charged as first degree/premeditated.
So, if BM strangled Suzanne, and I were on that jury, I would consider it premeditated, as all adult humans know that strangulation is lethal if applied in a lengthy fashion, and the length of time is long enough to reconsider one's actions.
If, on the other hand, I think I can stop a fight between my dog and the neighbor's dog by shooting at the enemy dog (but I hit the neighbor instead, who promptly bleeds out because I hit the femoral artery), a jury might consider that unpremeditated (because I impulsively was trying to save my dog).
More commonly, a person does something stupid, like that man who wanted to avoid the work of drilling a hole in the side of his house for the cable to come in. He and his wife determined that shooting a hole would make pleasant work of the task and be more efficient. So, she went outside to "look at where the hole should go" and he let off a round at the level and place he thought maybe the hole should go - but that single bullet hit his wife and killed her.
That was decided to be not premeditated. There are quite a few like that. A man shot a Joshua Tree (illegally, was showing off for girlfriend, girlfriend was filming, Tree fell on girl, girl died). Man was convicted of a few things, but not premeditated murder.
Juries are ultimately very very influential in all of this, although many jurors are heavily instructed by the judge via jury instructions to reach a particular conclusion. IMO.
YES!!!!!LS sent me a pm that her next piece is tonight
I'm not sure if Suzanne was prescribed anti-depressants when she had cancer but apparently in 2013 she had a "breakdown" or was diagnosed with Depression and she was "browbeaten" by BM almost every day, according to AM. It was at that time he was against her taking medication, and more recently against her trying medical marijuana.
Imo
I’m not sure which story is worse. 1. Mechanical thing with his bobcat 2. Mountain lion killed Suzanne 3. Alibi to broomfield
Hello All;
As a former state trial judge doing criminal cases exclusively for over thirty years, I am making my initial foray onto this site. I have a lot of catching up to do but this comment about courts permitting LE to lie to get at the truth of a case was so overboard that I wish to correct its breath. Courts do not operate on the theory that the end justifies the means 'to get at the truth of a case'. It is OK for LE to tell a suspect that their fingerprint was found at the scene in an effort to get an admission or some statement for the suspect. Courts do not sanction lying in court to a judge or jury regarding facts.
No no not at all. It was only reported that they had their own attorney. Not who is paying for the attorney. I should have said MOO! Unless the girls have many thousands of dollars in their own savings accounts. The youngest would still be a dependent. But if they aren’t in communication with the Moorman’s then who else would be paying the attorney? BM or their grandmother or aunt - someone from BM’s camp? I am curious what you are thinking but don’t want to cross into sleuthing the daughters territory. I was just questioning the legal dilemma it would seem to cause. But several OP have responded to that already.Is this reported in MSM? If not, how do we know?
So BM refused his wife access to marijuana and antidepressants against her own doctor’s advice.
He refused to give up the *** monies which were initially to help find his missing wife, despite the fact that she is still missing.
He has hired defense attorneys for both daughters and himself.
His wife recently inherited $500,000 and he begrudgingly offers a $100,000 reward for her safe return only.
He continues to isolate daughters from Moorman family despite knowing GM is terminally ill. GM is not only ill but cannot exercise his rights as a father to search for his daughter and his son is having to go this alone while taking more time away from family who needs him.
BM had to be the most selfish ******* I’ve ever imagined. IMO