What it usually means is the judge revoked her pro se status because she is too mentally unfit to assist in her defense. She needs legal defense as she has been ruled incompetent by at least 2 psychiatrists and needs to be confined to a facility. It wouldn't hurt to catch up on her behavior, she is quite obviously not sane.
Thank you. I don't think I've missed much here. And there is behavior by other defendants in cases I don't necessarily buy.
And that doesn't mean I think I am any doc or know, I just go by what we see, know, timing is a big one and how they acted when free and so forth.
And then when incarcerated yeah, they are then incompetent.
I also go by the knowing right from wrong standard. I don't know IN's things and particulars either of course.
Anyhow, so yes, I follow that it means or is said for one thing she is incompetent to put on her own defense pro se. And I think I mentioned such. However, overall, I would also think it means she is incompetent period to enter a hospital. It isn't as if they just said you need an attorney because you are incompetent.
I think you know I'm much like Mel although she may be stronger even about it than I.
She knew to evade arrest and knew her actions were wrong, for a very long time. And there's a dead child here. She never came forward, she never snagged an attorney and had him call LE and turn herhself in, she never came forward when her gf was arrested and put away.
I don't know that I've missed much at all, but you do see that I'm assuming?
So what are they going to do, restore her to competency and then have to let her represent herself? I don't even get that it applies to the pro SE thing other than of course it revokes that or anytihing while "restored". There is also unable to aid in their own defense which I THINK was Lori Daybell's thing, ONE of her times such was said, if not even both.
You and I differ on this is not an "excuse" and I am not the only one who feels that way.
Again he actions show she knew right from wrong which is the standard most places I've always understood.
And like always, it becomes about the defendant far more than a dead victim.
Both of them know what happened, they intentionally dumped him, they intentionally covered it up and far more. Did she come forward? No. did she know they were looking for her? I'm sure she did.
We aren't going to agree on the basics of all that and that's fine.
I appreciate the response because I do not know your state specifically and the laws.
And I recall a dead boy in a suitcase found and a town caring and burying him and total strangers here caring and elsewhere and a MOTHER that never came forward or her gf.
They had to find out his identify to even move forward.
You know most defendants of the worst crimes are probably not like most of the rest of us. It still is not an excuse.
Meaning most end up in prison and probably had a bad childhood, may have some problems, etc. I think a good portion come from drugs. No, I don't have much sympathy there.
And to most, committing a murder or killing someone is such a bar one would never cross but some do. It's the worst of the worst.
I am not easy on it and I am not into this new way of looking at defendants, letting them out and imo even what the last generation or two were taught (or more) and so no, I don't trust this and simply see as average people what I see and we know.
I also believe in the DP but that's gotten all soft and you may or may not agree on that.
However, I do appreciate the answer.
He gf was sent away. Was she totally fine and with this one who wasn't...
And so, here goes justice for the moment for this boy. She wasn't so incompetent she cam running forward and said that's my boy, I have issues and this is his name.
She KNEW BETTER than to do that to save her hide.
And THAT, for me, is what I look at.
And we do not have to agree.
And again, I do appreciate the response.