I Love You, Now Die: The Commonwealth Vs. Michelle Carter

All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
Just finished this 2 part documentary on HBO. I'm curious on everyone's thoughts on this. 
From a legal standpoint, and the overarching social issue of the mental health crisis with kids.

I'll also add that you shouldn't really formulate a hard opinion until you watch the whole 2 part documentary, even if you have some knowledge of  the case going in (like me).

It paints his situation, their relationship dynamic, and his parents in a different light.

Comments

  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    My initial thoughts:

    1) If I were the state supreme court judges, this would have never went to trial. They need to rewrite their laws going forward I guess, but the legal precedent is not there.

    2) I dont understand how the mom could say she had zero idea he would ever do this and he showed no signs. He went to the hospital on an attempted overdose a long time before this, and the mom literally had conversations with him about this saying that she would want to die if he died.

    3) Get your teenagers off of medications that obviously can make them do things like this.  Puberty all the way through early 20's can be bad enough with all of those hormones and chemicals swirling around our brains. The introduction of added medications throws 100 gallons of jet fuel on on top of a stove fire.
    You can tell just by the way these two talk in a manner completely broken from reality that something is wrong.
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    edited July 13
    **delete*
  • I raged when the cops tricked a minor into giving over her phone and pass code and then used all of that as evidence.

    When the defense skipped a jury trial, I understood why, but thought it was a mistake. My immediate thought after both sides presented their case was that you would never have gotten a unanimous verdict with all the known information but that a judge can have a valid legal argument either way, and in the end he found her guilty on an argument that the prosecution didn't even bring up.

    Overall this did a great job of showing the entire issue in a seemingly unbiased presentation, and I hope more crime docs continue with that. 
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    Seven said:
    I raged when the cops tricked a minor into giving over her phone and pass code and then used all of that as evidence.

    When the defense skipped a jury trial, I understood why, but thought it was a mistake. My immediate thought after both sides presented their case was that you would never have gotten a unanimous verdict with all the known information but that a judge can have a valid legal argument either way, and in the end he found her guilty on an argument that the prosecution didn't even bring up.

    Overall this did a great job of showing the entire issue in a seemingly unbiased presentation, and I hope more crime docs continue with that. 
    When they decided to skip the jury trial, I had two reactions:

    1) "WHAT? YOU CAN DO THAT?"

    2) I thought it was a good idea, because I'm much more trusting that a Judge would understand the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" moreso that I've seen with pretty much any jury trial in documentaries.
    Apparently, in this situation, that didn't help.


  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    Speaking of evidence-- the entire time I thought they had some concrete proof detailing her phone conversation with the 'victim', but towards the end they mentioned that they didn't have audio recordings of their conversations or texts proving that she actually did tell him to get back into the truck. Their only evidence was literally just the text she sent to someone after this all went down-- a text from this girl who was established as being a psychological mess who lied to friends about these exact types of things for more attention.

    The judge even admitted that he hung his entire decision on the aspect of the incident. I guess that's why she only got a little over a year.
  • My main problem with this case was not that I thought what she did shouldn't be punishable under the law, my main problem was the mental gymnastics required to make this fall under the involuntary manslaughter statute as it existed at the time. It should have prompted the creation of a new law, but I am extremely leery of what could now be construed as involuntary manslaughter. 
  • ChinaskiChinaski Santa Cruz, CA
    when i first saw this thread title i read, 'I Love You, Now Dee: The Commonwealth Vs. Michelle' and was all 'what the hell did i miss while i was gone?! oh no, @Freddy what did you do?' :D
    DeegguenotMichelle
Sign In or Register to comment.