00:00This entire case is based on speculation.
00:05Where is the admission?
00:07Where does she say that she did this?
00:10And what's most chilling is the fact that when she comes out of this obvious coma that she is in,
00:20that when she comes out of it,
00:22Your Honor heard the testimony from the psychiatrist and from the doctors at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
00:28She was told what happened.
00:31She had no memory of what happened.
00:36There is, there was, and there cannot be evidence under the Lattimore standard that this woman killed those children.
00:47As lawyers, as judges, we look to the evidence.
00:52I suggest to the court that it's readily apparent that you are put in a conundrum where you have to,
00:59in effect, admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility.
01:05Now, many, many laypeople have difficulty understanding the concept of the bifurcation and say,
01:14Well, you know, she admitted that she did it, so she's guilty.
01:18And therefore, she's just guilty.
01:21And then they go off on a tangent about all of these horrific allegations, you know, that she's a demon
01:28and she's possessed and she should be executed.
01:30And this is coming from politicians, you know, from President Trump all the way down.
01:35So the first point, that there isn't enough evidence to prove that she did it, I would suggest is a
01:42laughable argument.
01:43And based on what Your Honor sat through, through several weeks of the trial, that the Commonwealth met its burden
01:48as it applies to that.
01:49And the case law is clear, that not every defendant with a mental illness lacks criminal responsibility.
01:55That's Commonwealth v. Brigitte.
01:57That's Commonwealth v. Rezac.
02:01A defendant who has mental illness can commit crimes and can be criminally responsible.
02:07A defendant who had a football風ch Budgenness Right Now.
02:07A defendant who had a medical aboard duty.
02:08A defendant who has a mental illness for recovery.
Comments