If she was texting someone to kill another person, or to finish the job, she would be an accomplice for conspiracy. How is this really any different since he is the victim of his own death (as opposed to another's). Does this make sense?
It is different because she is not being charged as an accomplice, she is being charged as the implied sole agent of his death. It is different because murdered persons (generally) share no responsibility for their own murder.
Blaming Michelle alone for Conrad's action while removing any responsibility from his shoulders IMO unfairly infantilizes him, as if he were a helpless baby dependent on someone else to tell him what to do. He wasn't. Had he been that far gone he would not have been able to function more or less normally in his daily life.
This case is horrible, Michelle's actions were horrible, I don't dispute that. If she had acted differently, perhaps he would have chosen a different route.
But I have a real problem with holding one person responsible for another person's actions.
I'll wager that if Michelle had texted Conrad to kill another person instead of himself, and he had, no one here would be advocating that it was all her fault and no responsibility lay with him. No matter what his mental state at the time.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any cases in which more than one person killed another and one of those people was exonerated because another one "made" them do it.
I realize I sound completely unsympathetic to Conrad and I am not. I have been in the throes of severe, suicidal depression myself so I know how awful it is.
However, I repeat: I have a real problem with holding one person responsible for another person's actions.
I will be quite interested to see how this case unfolds legally.