Because they're a bunch of bleeding hearts who have nothing better to do. If one commits an act they are responsible for the consequences thereof. Claiming to be "mental" does not change that fact. Granted there are a few people (>1%) who do not have the mental capacity to understand what they've done, but too many people try to use the "mental" card simply to evade the consequences of their actions.
I don't understand supporting her or the one's claiming it could have been them. Almost $1M has been raised for this woman. She did not snap and do it, it was planned and she knew it was wrong.
Why are YOU supporting a man who has recently had to pay $5m for lying about raping a woman, has been credibly accused of violating dozens of little girls (and is repeatedly refusing to release the documents that would prove it one way or the other, so on the balance of probabilities he's guilty as sin) and killed 165 other little girls on day 1 of a pointless war to distract attention away from that?
He's a legal resident of Florida. That state recently made child rape a CAPITAL crime.
To a woman who thinks rape is sexy. Who referred to her husband as a monkey, named her cat vagina. Who has accused no less than 4 different men of raping her. Who got her story about Trump from a Law and Order episode. Who claims to have the dress she had on at the time, which was not even designed until years later. Who can not even name the date and said the Apprentice with Donald Trump was her favorite show. And the fine was not for rape, it was for deflamation not rape....the jury did not believe the rape BS either.
Iran should not have a nuclear weapon...they should not be allowed to have nuclear energy either.
No, I'm highlighting the double stsndard. You have repeatedly opined that pedophiles should be thown into a woodchipper. Unless, apparently, his name is Donald J Trump.
That crazy woman was not a child at the time she lied about Trump raping her. Trump has not been convicted of being a pedo. And if he was proven to be a pedo, I will be the first saying woodchipper....feet first.
Unfortunately, I have seen way-more-than-several cases in the last months in which mothers/fathers kill children.
If you're referring to the case in which I believe you might be, I question why so many of us, the public, know, daily, more and more about the case details because cameras are in the courtroom and reporters/commentators are everywhere discussing and we see/read bits and snippets of the trial. But all the snippets are not heard/seen within context of entire trial because we, the public, are not the jury. Yet, so many people seem to have reached their own verdict.
In this particular trial, I saw a large group outside-as-a-group standing up for one of these killer mothers, as if they were dear personal friends of her and raising funds for defendant. (I don't know -- maybe they are friends but it seemed as if they were not personally involved with the defendant.)
I, too, question it all.
I do not believe we, the public, have a right to know anything about any details of the trial. Let alone, day by day details and "updates." We are not on the jury. We are not in the courtroom. We are not hearing/seeing every single moment like the jury members. The murdered victims deserve a fair trial, as does any defendant. I believe the jury should be sequestered from Day One of the trial in this particular case that, seemingly, the entire USA is debating and talking about, as if we are all there on the jury.
I guess my point is that we all know too much, yet, not enough, since we are not the jury. I believe we have not the right to know.
(EDITed to correct some spelling errors.)
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at September 5, 2026 3:49 PM MDT
There is a lot of misinformation. People are claiming the husband did the murders. She admits she murdered her children.
I did not follow the case, but I know the basics. And I know enough to say she knew what she was doing was wrong. She planned it and sent her husband away so she could.
Personally, I would put her him a mental hospital and make her sterile so IF they every decide she is well enough to be released, it cannot happen again.
I get your points, yes. Like you, I've not intensely and closely followed the case but it seems to me, too, that she knew what she did was wrong as far as the timing of her actions while her husband was away. I'm no expert but it seems extreme reasoning to blame three murders, especially of one's own very young children, all on postpartum depression and poor care. I apologize, though. I realize I'm talking like I know everything, against what I said in my original answer.
I had not heard that some think the husband did the murders. Geez.
I know what I shared in reply here seems to sort of go against what I said above in my original answer.
I think my original answer was about murder trials in general, especially ones that end up being 'popular.'
(But, hey, I admit I sometimes get overly involved -- even more than a century later. The Andrew and Abby Borden murders of 1892. I've read countless research on the case and Lizzie was acquitted in trial, even though most seem to think she did it. I think one researcher/ author has done the best in getting to possible answer. Involving an unacknowledged-by-Andrew son -- a brother to sisters Lizzie and Emma. I go on too long again.)
Hey, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your thoughts.
Shuhak 