Yup!
I've read so many comments in here regarding the psychosis aspect and assuming that it was a direct and primary result of the "solitary confinement"/one man cell and the allegations of prisoner neglect when in factual reality psychotic episodes as a whole can be brought about by a multitude of triggers. Taking away the mental illnesses that we all know include psychosis (as RA was diagnosed with none of them before during or after) you also have alcohol withdrawal, that can cause a psychotic episode and we know by RA's own word and history that he loved a bev. You also have stress, when your brain becomes overloaded with stress or anxiety it can cause a level of psychosis... I don't think the level of stress in RA's situation needs to be explained. Then we have depression. RA is noted to have had struggles with depression "most of his life" and severe depression can cause a psychotic episode. There's many other triggers too.
So to buy into the defenses claim that him being kept in a cell on his own for his own safety is the direct cause of psychosis is absurd.
Whilst guilt as a singular isn't known to cause psychosis, extreme guilt can and does cause anxiety, stress and depression which can result in a psychotic episode. Brief reactive psychosis is commonly triggered by a stressful and disturbing event and is very reactive to medication as seen with RA.
Anyways I'm babbling, but yah you get the picture. IMO the brief psychotic episodes mentioned in trial are NOT the result of a man kept in a one man cell for a year for his own safety, but they're a result of a guilty man who's consequences to his actions have caused a whirlwind of triggers in his brain - stress, anxiety, depression. The confessions happened and even IF they were given whilst an episode of psychosis was present, though it's been testified to that some confessions occured episode free, even IF they were it doesn't mean they are not true and IMO they explain why the psychosis occured in the first place... He killed those little girls, he got caught, locked up and was exposed to the two most important people to him (wife and mother) and his head couldn't handle it all which resulted in a brief psychotic episode. His actions that he repeatedly confessed to caused it, not the DOC.
IMO
Very detailed take -- I don't think the conditions he was kept in can be excluded from the causal story of these psychotic episodes, but I also don't know how much weight the confessions are likely to carry with the jury, given the relative weakness of this testimony.
If I'm having to weight the evidence, I'd say the SnapChat video evidence leads the way -- as actual, harrowing footage of the murders about to take place and the murderer in pursuit. It is impossible to ignore, and places an RA-like man directly in the frame. From there, the equivalence is whether or not the jury believes that RA = BG.
Why should they? First, IMO, the crime scene itself, with the complex but compelling stories it tells about when and how the murders happened, including the contested account of weapons used, and of coursethe unspent cartridge that connects to RA's own gun.
But why RA, specifically? Here it's the various testimony placing RA on the bridge on that day are those times (including his own). The confessions, whether the jury feels they're genuine or not, provide those critical details that "only the killer would know," or not, and whether they were coerced or illegitimately extracted or represented or not, for me lie somewhere near the bottom of the pile. There's something there, but I'd view them as more collaborative than definitive, were I a juror in this case (Spoiler: I ain't).
Anyway, that's my tuppence as a non-avid follower of the case. I reckon there's enough there for a safe conviction, but also some daylight between the bricks of the state's case, to recycle an earlier metaphor. I do think that RA is guilty, but won't be placing bets.
