arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Good catch.Lol, defense attorney asked the witness (Seipel) if he was “diabolically” opposed to Dr. Lytton’s opinion. I’m sure he meant diametrically opposed, IOW the exact opposite.
Good catch.Lol, defense attorney asked the witness (Seipel) if he was “diabolically” opposed to Dr. Lytton’s opinion. I’m sure he meant diametrically opposed, IOW the exact opposite.
He was. Diabolically so.Lol, defense attorney asked the witness (Seipel) if he was “diabolically” opposed to Dr. Lytton’s opinion. I’m sure he meant diametrically opposed, IOW the exact opposite.
Ok, she's responsible for her actions if her actions are solely drug induced acc to law in that state.If this has been laid out, apologies for having missed it. And maybe this varies state by state.
The jury is answering the question “was she responsible for her actions” correct? So just a yes or no verdict this time.
If yes, she will get a prison sentence.
If they deem she was not responsible… then what?
I’ve always wondered, does she not go to prison at all? Is she held in a mental health facility, given treatment and meds?
For how long? Life?
What happens if/when she’s released and decides to stop her meds and future treatment?
Thanks if anyone can answer.
Cutting him up to more easily dispose of and cover up the crime indicates she knows it was wrong.Ok, she's responsible for her actions if her actions are solely drug induced acc to law in that state.
HOWEVER I think it's crazy to ignore her diagnosed mental condition or ignore it as if it never existed because she brought that with her into her killing.
if she gets jail she's unlikely to receive the care she needs because jails are not hospitals.
she needs specialised qualified mental health diagnosis and treatment.
That means a clinical assessment from an actual psychiatrist.
she needs drugs to bring her into stability to give her the experience of balance something she has apparently never had.
She also needs heavy duty psychotherapy once stability has been obtained and maintained for probably a long period of time.
I don't see her entering society for a very long time, if ever.
Stating she had knowledge of wrongdoing because she carved up his body is a bizarre thing, IMO..
if she had run out of there and gone for a long drive for a period of time, then yes...
But to choose to slice him up in an effort to cover up his death is the most macabre action she could have taken and not indicative of sanity or responsibility, it is indicative of severe mental illness.
Agreed. And to explain to LE exactly what you did and why you were hiding evidence in detail suggest you know right from wrong. mooCutting him up to more easily dispose of and cover up the crime indicates she knows it was wrong.
I understand, but I was not really asking for opinions. I was asking what actually happens according to the law. Thanks.Ok, she's responsible for her actions if her actions are solely drug induced acc to law in that state.
HOWEVER I think it's crazy to ignore her diagnosed mental condition or ignore it as if it never existed because she brought that with her into her killing.
if she gets jail she's unlikely to receive the care she needs because jails are not hospitals.
she needs specialised qualified mental health diagnosis and treatment.
That means a clinical assessment from an actual psychiatrist.
she needs drugs to bring her into stability to give her the experience of balance something she has apparently never had.
She also needs heavy duty psychotherapy once stability has been obtained and maintained for probably a long period of time.
I don't see her entering society for a very long time, if ever.
Stating she had knowledge of wrongdoing because she carved up his body is a bizarre thing, IMO..
if she had run out of there and gone for a long drive for a period of time, then yes...
But to choose to slice him up in an effort to cover up his death is the most macabre action she could have taken and not indicative of sanity or responsibility, it is indicative of severe mental illness.
Google is your friend in that case.I understand, but I was not really asking for opinions. I was asking what actually happens according to the T
Sorry, thought you were new to the case and was merely filling you in..I understand, but I was not really asking for opinions. I was asking what actually happens according to the law. Thanks.
Editing to add, we can all go back and forth all day on what we all think is right, what we think she needs. I didn’t know if it was legally laid out anywhere? Just out of curiosity.