11-12-2011, 03:48 AM
The Montana case was on tonight. I hadn't heard of it. IMO, the teen girl was clearly trying to commit suicide.
The unwillingness to take responsibility must be genetic and that girl got it from her father. The fact that they sued the estate of the mother and child she killed was reprehensible - the dad tried to explain it away as just a strategy to get more from the insurance company.
At the end,the girl did finally seem to display some feelings of remorse and understanding of what she had taken from the family of the people she killed - though she was still trying to explain away those text messages.
And the psychologist who testified during the trial - what drivel. I have a BA in psychology - my husband has a PhD and has been an expert witness. IMO, psychologists' testimony is worthless. For anything you can get a psychologist to testify about, there's research supporting the opposite view.
The unwillingness to take responsibility must be genetic and that girl got it from her father. The fact that they sued the estate of the mother and child she killed was reprehensible - the dad tried to explain it away as just a strategy to get more from the insurance company.
At the end,the girl did finally seem to display some feelings of remorse and understanding of what she had taken from the family of the people she killed - though she was still trying to explain away those text messages.
And the psychologist who testified during the trial - what drivel. I have a BA in psychology - my husband has a PhD and has been an expert witness. IMO, psychologists' testimony is worthless. For anything you can get a psychologist to testify about, there's research supporting the opposite view.