Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Aren't professionals evaluating her? She can't "run out the clock" -- she's not in charge. I seriously doubt anyone could pretend to be so ill they convince a professional they are not competent to stand trial when they are actually normal. I'm sure the people evaluating her know what to look for.

There are many shades of gray between clinically insane and unable to stand trial and normal.

My point is, I'm sure whoever is evaluating her knows what they are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Aren't professionals evaluating her? She can't "run out the clock" -- she's not in charge. I seriously doubt anyone could pretend to be so ill they convince a professional they are not competent to stand trial when they are actually normal. I'm sure the people evaluating her know what to look for.

There are many shades of gray between clinically insane and unable to stand trial and normal.

Anonymous wrote:Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Aren't professionals evaluating her? She can't "run out the clock" -- she's not in charge. I seriously doubt anyone could pretend to be so ill they convince a professional they are not competent to stand trial when they are actually normal. I'm sure the people evaluating her know what to look for.

Anonymous wrote:Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Agree, this is what needs to happen. You don't get to get on with your life after killing your kids.

Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Well she told someone she killed them so there is that evidence.

If she's incompetent to stand trial, why is anything she says about the kids believable?

She’s not. She’s malingering

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Well she told someone she killed them so there is that evidence.

If she's incompetent to stand trial, why is anything she says about the kids believable?

Anonymous wrote:She also came back to take the third kid. She picked them off one by one, youngest it oldest. She absolutely killed them, and there is evidence. But she is not competent to stand trial.

I hope the surviving child has excellent therapy and family support. I can't imagine the burden he must bear, poor kid.

Maybe another family member thought those kids would be better off growing up in a more healthy family and found someone to adopt them. And she's being framed because she's mentally ill.

Maybe another family member is responsible for them dying in an accident and is framing her because she is mentally ill.

Who knows.

Anonymous wrote:She also came back to take the third kid. She picked them off one by one, youngest it oldest. She absolutely killed them, and there is evidence. But she is not competent to stand trial.

The family-run Facebook post upthread suggested there is evidence that can't be disclosed publicly.

She also came back to take the third kid. She picked them off one by one, youngest it oldest. She absolutely killed them, and there is evidence. But she is not competent to stand trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Because there's no evidence they're alive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Well she told someone she killed them so there is that evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?