Another Disorder invented to exonerate criminals

Post Reply New Topic

What would you consider proper evidence in this case?

You have someone with zero criminal history, with no evidence of premeditation, who's probably both freaking out with guilt and fully cooperating. You have their interview, you might have some text messages and you don't have much else.

There isn't a whole lot of evidence on which to base any understanding of her intent but there's absolutely none pointing to her intending to kill him prior to it occurring.

If what you are saying is true there are some logistical problems I see. If she was "innocently" taking her second shot of the bong then had her psychotic hallucination kicked in, According to Spejcher voices in her head
She was somehow able to consciously move to the kitchen took three knives from a block before stabbing O'Melia 108 times.

Strange because her grandmother is a psychiatric nurse who testified -'Bryn is steadfast in morals, honesty, life choices regarding citizenship with the Girl Scouts, church, health, family and friends. She has never been violent or in trouble with the law. She has been gentle and compassionate,'

Something doesn't add up here. The very argument used by her defince about her character makes this even worse since it shouldn't be in her nature to suddenly think murder is is ok because a voice in her head told her so.

BTW The prosecution said this -“It sets a very dangerous precedent,” Nafziger said. “It’s also a slap in the face to the victim’s family and speaks poorly to victims’ relief everywhere that ... it’s OK to smoke marijuana and butcher someone with three knives. But it’s not OK to smoke marijuana and drive and kill someone. That will send you to jail. ... It doesn’t square.”

At the very least she is a danger to society and should be interned in a psychiatric hospital.

She was psychotic, not in a stupor.



I disagree with the prosecutor, because he's acting like it was a sound-minded choice. She's going to prison, they're also making her do public service that amounts to telling people that her story is a possible outcome of smoking dope. I don't exactly see where a manslaughter conviction is synonymous with saying it's okay to kill people. They're literally opposite outcomes. A not guilty verdict and no ramifications would send that message but that's not what's occurred. Nafziger is being dishonest.

If she was suffering ongoing delusions I'd agree that ongoing psychiatric care (along with a not guilty due to insanity verdict) would be appropriate.

I would argue that coming out of the blue this is worse. There is also reliance from the defence on her own testimony that acknowledging her casual use of marijuana before that suddenly she was exposed to a "high" dose she never took before. This is her claim.

She is not only a danger to other people, she also tried to kill her dog and attempted to stab herself. I don't understand why she is going to be allowed to walk the streets.

I would say this isn't out of the blue, this was in direct response to a bad reaction to an intoxicant.

I'm pretty sure drug testing is part of probation in the US, if not abstaining from marijuana should probably be a condition.

I disagree that the way someone behaved during a psychotic episode is representative of how they might behave under normal circumstances. Having some familiarity with such experiences they often represent a drastically different character who's interacting with a dramatically different reality.