@TradAdvocate Good god. She killed three children? She’s the victim? Are you for real right now? What a terrible take. The ones who died are the victims!
This should make you angry.
This is Bonnie Pierce, a 38-year-old mother of three from St. Paul, Minnesota. Her house caught fire. She and two of her children escaped, then realized her toddler was still inside.
Bonnie went back in, found the child, but could not get out. She shielded the child with her body. She died from her burns. The child survived.
A GoFundMe for her family raised about $42,000.
By comparison, more than $1,000,000 was raised on GoFundMe for Lindsay Clancy, who was charged with killing her children.
It is a sad reflection of the society we have become.
RIP Bonnie.
@greendragonhq@Chris__X__ Also Obama dropped more bombs than Trump and deported more than him. Living wages?? Blue city states are essentially unaffordable. God damn this was a stupid response.
@greendragonhq@Chris__X__ Institutional freedoms?? Says the party who forced the jab on millions, canceled prominent doctors, and publicly shunned people who asked questions about a vaccine rushed to market. Fuck off you retard
@Airaswe Because a large group of women are SUPPORTING a child murderer. Men never support other child muderers. Her go fund me is at 3 million. Who is supporting that? WOMEN! Sit the fuck down with this stupid ass post.
@AliBeckZeck She killed her kids and she deserves to be locked up forever. Either in jail or a mental hospital. No other outcome will be acceptable to the general public. You can have empathy for her struggles but that doesn’t excuse her crimes. Same for mentally ill serial killers.
@RealTraderJill The difference is literally no one supported him. No group of men stood out on the streets with love signs for him. Best check yourself before you post stupid shit like this. But your last point I agree with.
I avoided commenting on the Lindsay Clancy trial because its nuanced and emotional but the implications are enormous so I am going to say something now. A lot of people are calling that one juror who wouldn't join the other eleven irrational. But, that juror is probably the only one asking the right questions imo: where is the evidence that she lacked the capacity to know it was wrong or to stop herself? And, maybe, where do we draw the line on what an ostensibly insane person is allowed to do when the doubt the defense manufactured rests on nothing in the record before the killings? It seems that the entirety of the defense position rests on improbable probabilities and that's a low bar for such a heinous act.
1. Postpartum psychosis is rare, and almost always happens in the first 4 weeks. The idea that some psychiatrists extend the postpartum window to a year is true, but for depression and anxiety. The evidence isn't strong for psychosis, and its latching on to improbability
2. The strongest risk factor for postpartum psychosis is preexisting bipolar disorder or a prior psychotic episode. She had neither before her third child. The real time evidence from her doctors/providers indicate this. The bipolar label that showed up was after significant polypharmacy, and any good psychiatrist will tell you that you cannot diagnose primary disease when multiple drugs could be offending agents. Drug-induced psychosis would show better temporal correlations with her medications and should be a mitigation argument at sentencing. Again, very improbable alignment
3. The proxy for intent is planning, and she clearly planned... she sent her husband to some restaurant they don't normally go to, checked the drive time, texted a specific order at 5:07 pm... she killed her children in sequence. That's demonstrating real time decision making. I don't understand how they circumvented this. Again, very improbable that she was able to make decisions up until it becomes a liability
4. This idea of a "voice" that commanded her is so post-hoc as a defense. The ltierature on command hallucinations show most people don't obey them and the compliance occurs when the voice is familiar. This was a first time voice she only ever reported 2 weeks after killing her kids. And this first time voice asked her to... kill all her children AND she listened to this unfamiliar voice? Again... very improbable
The improbability is so stark that it's almost undeniably a sympathy verdict from the jurors conflated with a misunderstanding of postpartum disease. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to take a father with the same chart, months of documented depression, insomnia, suicidal ideation but no psychosis then strangles his kids after arranging for his wife to be away from the house. 100% guilty.
Everyone knows postpartum disease is real and important. Everyone knows she's sick and needed help, possibly much better management. You can even argue she is insane. What I see to be the most important is where we draw the line of what we allow under the "insanity" rule. Massachusetts forces a binary verdict of guilty or not criminally responsible but this is a case for the third that other states have and which is guilty but mentally ill. We have a responsibility to speak for the unheard voices of these children and future children and say we draw the line at murdering children.