Woman allegedly advised by "geese" not guilty in tot death

From the article:

'Authorities said Pappas called 911 from her son's home October 29, 2005, and said, "I flipped ... the baby was crying and I couldn't handle it."

When police arrived, they found Pappas holding a phone. Both her hands were stained with blood, and an 8-inch knife was found near the body of 21-month-old Madison Pappas.

Madison had been stabbed numerous times.

Authorities said Pappas had told her son she had been receiving spiritual advice from geese flying over his house, where she was living.'

Sounds like she just lost patience with the baby and murdered her, ESP-enabled geese notwithstanding. This was her excuse, and she used it quite effectively; men, however, don't get this option.

No one should, but women do.

If she were found "not guilty", she'd be free to go. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which usually results in indefinite incarceration in a secure psychiatric facility.

Court records showed she had been admitted to hospitals for psychiatric care at least six times in 2005, including six weeks before the slaying.

Hearing non-existent voices from inanimate, imaginary or other objects/persons/animals is not an unusual feature of psychosis. If she's been in and out of hospital that much, I suspect she really is ill.

It sounds like this person actually is insane based on the article and her history, but that's for the mental hospital to sort out - hence the reason she is being incarcerated there. I'd like to think that similar treatment would be offered to a frankly psychotic man, but I know men are more likely to end up in prison instead of hospitals, even when they are clearly mentally ill.

Still, this story strikes me as tragic, not as an indicator of some kind of sexism or gender privilege. It's a bloody shame that an infant had to die before anyone figured out she was hearing voices, especially given her long history of psychiatric troubles, but that being said, if she's insane, she truly is not at fault for her actions. I feel sorry for the dead child and for her.

Here's my question: why wasn't children's aid/family services busy protecting her children when she was known to be psychotic? Social workers are part of every large psych ward's staff, and they absolutely have a duty to ensure that discharged patients are fit to care for their children as part of the process. They clearly failed to supervise her correctly, and failed to assess the risk to the child.

For women who murder children the very rarely used and even rarer successful defense tactic of not guilty by reason of insanity is now become their de jure.

Isn't it odd that men who are accused of committing any type of crime that has to do with children are required to stay away from them indefinitely and register with the police as a known predator? But women like Andrea Yates and this monster who are treated for potentially dangerous psychotic mental disorders are given access to vulnerable children.
This woman like Yates very well may be clinically insane but the state should have forbidden her by statute to never be around children and especially never be alone with them.

*******************

LISA DIAZ
IN 2003 DROWNED TWO CHILDREN ONE 6 YEAR OLD AND THE OTHER 3 YEARS OLD IN BATHTUB.
FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY
RELEASED 2006.

DEANNA LANEY

IN 2003 KILLED TWO CHILDREN ONE AGED 6 AND THE OTHER AGED 8 BY BASHING THEM IN THE HEAD WITH A ROCK. TRIED TO KILLED A 14 MONTH OLD INFANT THE SAME WAY BUT HE SURVIVED HOWEVER WILL BE HANDICAPPED FOR LIFE BECAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THE ATTEMPTED MURDER.
FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY.

DENA SCHLOSSER

IN 2004 MURDERED 14 MONTH OLD INFANT BY CUTTING OFF ITS ARMS WITH A BUTCHER’S KNIFE. CHILD BLED TO DEATH.
FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY.

IN 2001 ANDREA YATES MURDERED 5 CHILDREN BY DROWNING THEM IN A BATHTUB.(SEE LIZA DIAZ) INITIALLY CONVICTED OF MURDER BUT LATER RETRIED AND FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. HER NEW ROOMMATE IS DENA SCHLOSSER.

The insanity defense is a very difficult legal tactic to employ, and it usually fails.

A jury of 12 people obviously bought the story that this woman is insane.

Undoubtedly many psychological experts examined her and testified that she met the criteria for temporary insanity.

If those same expert shrinks interviewed N.O.W.'s president Kim Gandy, the result would be the same.

Not guilty by virtue of being one crazy bitch.

The law works on a simple principal when it comes to evidence.

The most contemporaneous evidence = The most credible evidence

In this case the 911 call would be the most contemporaneous (closest to the time the crime occurred) evidence.

Unless there is more to the 911 call that we didn't get in the article relating specifically to talking geese, I'd say her own words betray her and she in fact killed the child because she lost patience with her, not because geese told her to.

Now I'm not saying she's not insane. I'm just saying it does not look as though her insanity directly caused her to murder the girl. Insane people can and in fact do perform very rational acts most of the time, and they are subject for the most part to the same cause and effect emotional stresses that the rest of experience in our day to day lives.

As for psychologists and other mental health experts examining her and her case - I doubt it very very much that a single mental health expert hired by the defense to testify to her insanity has ever spoken one single word to this woman.

You guys seem to have a misguided notion of how 'expert witnesses' work. They don't interview or examine the suspect. They get whatever evidence the side that hired them wants to give them plus a very large bag of money. That's it. They get a pre-painted picture with select evidence and depending on how bias they are, they get a large amount of money. The greater the bias the more money they can charge because they are considered specialists in painting just the type of picture who ever hired them wants painted.

Oh sure, some of the doctors that she has seen prior to the murder occurring would have testified. They however would have been severely limited and likely called by the defense. You see, who ever gets them on their witness list first gets to pick out exactly what they say. Since there are rules to cross examination - one being that questions based on information arising directly from the scope of information covered by direct examination. If the defense called her doctors and asked them only a couple of quick yes or no type questions relating only to the number of times they saw her and asked nothing about their opinion of her mental capacity, the prosecution would not be allowed to ask those questions because they were not covered in direct.

Since human beings reflexively look for a reason - excuse - to explain away female misbehavior, it would not have been a hard sell to loosely tie this woman's mental illness to why she killed the little girl.

I don't buy that in the case of a female defendant "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a hard verdict to get.

Everything you have ever heard about "insanity being a hard sell and rarely used tactic" I will 100% guarantee that it is based on information pertaining exclusively to MALE defendants.

Female defendants are different. They are treated differently at EVERY step of the process when they come into involvement with the justice system. The way they are handled by police is different, the way evidence is collected is different, the way prosecutes approach the case is different, the way judges look at the case is different, and most of all juries look at female defendants completely differently then they look at male defendants.

Just as we assume the worst of male defendants and are ready to hang them from the highest tree upon hearing of their arrest alone, we assume the best of women defendants and look for any excuse to forgive them.

We MUST therefore assume that when we hear about male defendants in media it's not as bad as reported due to gender bias and when we hear about women defendants in the media it is worse then reported due to gender bias.

I would say it is not only completely safe but entirely reasonable for any MRA to assume gender bias in favor of female defendants and assume that the entirely sexist court system allows female privilege to trump justice from start to finish. So much so in fact that most female criminals are never arrested or prosecuted at all.

P-gone ---- "You guys seem to have a misguided notion of how 'expert witnesses' work. They don't interview or examine the suspect. They get whatever evidence the side that hired them wants to give them plus a very large bag of money. That's it. They get a pre-painted picture with select evidence and depending on how bias they are, they get a large amount of money. The greater the bias the more money they can charge because they are considered specialists in painting just the type of picture who ever hired them wants painted."

Please provide evidence for your assertions.

Actual legal cases, actual citations.

Thanks in advance....

From my comment:

I'd like to think that similar treatment would be offered to a frankly psychotic man, but I know men are more likely to end up in prison instead of hospitals, even when they are clearly mentally ill.

As I said anthony, I agree with you - generally speaking, the courts and society as a whole are biased against men (blame the man, excuse the woman). I just don't see how this case does anything to prove that. The woman was apparently psychotic. If so, she was insane and therefore not criminally responsible for her actions. She's not trying to blame a man for her crime, nor are the courts. She doesn't stand to profit or gain from the crime. She's not being released from custody.

She belongs in a hospital, not a prison. We're talking about someone with a clearly documented history of psychiatric problems severe enough to warrant hospitalization every few months. She's not a criminal, she's insane. The courts made the right decision in this case, based on the information available in the article. Yes, she probably will be incarcerated for less time than a man would be if he'd done the same crime, because we as a society blame men and excuse women.

Also, indefinite incarceration in a secure mental hospital is not a "sympathetic decision". People committed to such institutions instead of prison often serve much longer terms as inmates than they would have if convicted of the crime, and are subject to some pretty nasty treatments, usually involuntarily. Whether or not that's the case here only time will tell.

according to the old saying, shouldn't men be able to use this defense?
-axo

I think it depends on what type expert witness it is, i.e. their area of specialty, whether they interview someone. I don't know, when you have one of those cases where 3 doctors says someone is sane, and 3 say insane, do they calls those doctors "expert witnesses"? Wait a minute.....

I just looked in Black's Law Dictionary, Pocket Ed: "expert witness: a witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to provide a scientific, technical, or other specialized opinion about the evidence or a fact issue."

Make of that what you will.

Here's a link to the book "Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases":Book description

-axo

.... but you got it.

Experts testify on EVIDENCE, not witnesses.

It's once in a blue moon that any expert will speak one word to a defendant. They get evidence (or summary reports if the actual evidence is not allowed to be moved or handled) and they say what they think of it based on their knowledge and experience.

They don't talk to witnesses and say 'sane' or 'insane'. That's for a jury to decide.

They say, 'based on what I have seen of this case, it's clear to me that X, Y, and Z behaviors are consistent with ABC disorder.'

The rules of feminist law, properly described.

"Experts testify on EVIDENCE, not witnesses."

That is why it has become impossible to DESCRIBE A LIAR within the rules of feminist law.