<p>Toblin- Nothing about the question “Do I still have a job?” Elicits any sympathy in me, whatsoever.</p>
<p>Let’s say in some bizarre universe you were to come to in the back of a cop car and were told that three of your collegues had just been shot in the head, would your first response be, “Do I still have a job?”</p>
<p>I mean, who would even think of that?</p>
<p>No, she is really scary, this woman, imho. Life without parole.</p>
<p>Why would she ask that? Doesn’t she know that her appeals meant that she was being fired even before the shootings?</p>
<p>Maybe it’s all part of her “insanity defense” charade.</p>
<p>Didn’t she say that the people she shot were still alive? I do think she lives in a parallel universe in which her actions do not have consequences. She can only think of herself.
One can interpret her novel in the same way. It may be about atoning for killing her brother, but ultimately, it’s still about her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently the prosecutor feels that this insanity defense won’t hold in this case. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.</p>
<p>I don’t see how this ever could have been the perfect crime. Even if she had killed every person in the room, are there no video cameras in the building (recalling the recent murder at Yale)? Was the building entirely empty of people who could have seen her go in? Would there not have have been e-mail records regarding the meeting (i.e. e-mails sent to those who were meant to attend)? What about tracing the gun? DNA evidence? As a biologist, it seems to me she would have known just how hard it is to commit the perfect crime in this day and age.</p>
<p>Oh, and not to mention, motive. It seems everyone on that campus knew she was agitated on the tenure issue. She was never going to get away with this, no matter how many people she killed.</p>
<p>It becomes a perfect crime if she is successful in her attempt to plead innocent by reason of insanity. She is very clever - a scientist! Lots of training in psychology. She thinks she can get out of this one by pretending to be even more nuts than she is. I would like to see it tried as a death penalty case, then give her life without parole.</p>
<p>Just think - she could have gone off on one of her classes. After all, it was the students fault.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you are not of the ordinary. Else sociopaths could not thrive.</p>
<p>If she still had a job then her kids tuition would still free and the family still had health insurance. Just hypothesizing… But we really cant rationalize irrational behavior.</p>
<p>As for her current attorney. Dumb like a fox. Throw soundbites out there that ring in peoples heads and ears, and thats what they remember, even if it isnt true. Is she paranoid schiz? Very doubtful. But the term has been thrown out by her atty and now people have “heard” it and the idea was planted in their head. Classic media manipulation. Touche.</p>
<p>As for sympathy for the kids. I think people will have some sympathy for them to certain degree, but unlike the examples above where person A shot their own family member/spouse/parent of the innocent kids, etc, this lady shot OTHER people’s family members, so the pain is felt by those families and the extended “family”, the UAH Bio Dept and the UAH community.</p>
<p>And while her trainig is in the sciences, there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that she had any training in psychology. It does remind me, however, of a movie plot many yrs ago where a hit man went to therapy for treatment of someting-- probably a dissociative disorder (can’t recall). Basically, the premise was that he was creating an alternate life/identity/alibi, should he ever get caught. But the treating psychologist figured it out, adn he then came after her. Wish I could rememebr the name of the movie/tv show or wahtever it was. I recall it b/c I was in grad school at the time and found it frighteningly clever, adn hoped I never had a client like that!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because someone has a “smart” job doesn’t mean they have common sense. It certainly could be a play for the insanity angle, though.</p>
<p>Personally, I think she was just so egotistical she thought she could get away with it . . . because she’s so smart she can fool everyone in the world, right? She’s DR. AMY BISHOP! <em>wields booster seat in the air savagely</em></p>
<p>I’ve got to agree with poetgirl, asking “Do I have a job?” doesn’t awake the slightest bit of sympathy in me. Just incredulity quickly followed by anger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Then have at it” ?? The adversarial system at its worse. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be better to have a DA who says “Yes, I too, like the defense attornies, would like a competent professional mental health evaluation of the accused to ascertain whether or not she is insane”.</p>
<p>There will be posturing and one-liners on both sides in a high-profile case like this. The media presence makes people say attention-getting things. In most criminal proceedings, the discourse, even if adversarial, is civil and rational.</p>
<p>Perhaps because I don’t want to see her get off with an insanity plea, I’m glad that the prosecution feels ready to take it on. I think the victims and the community at large are going to want to see the prosecution do their job. She has a defense, and he’s already out there giving his sound bites to the press.</p>
<p>Given that she has a house that was paid for in cash, and she still has a job, it’s questionable whether she has a right to a public defender. Not sure as a result how long he’ll be her attorney…</p>
<p>Oh, and not to mention, motive. It seems everyone on that campus knew she was agitated on the tenure issue. She was never going to get away with this, no matter how many people she killed.</p>
<p>I wonder if the house is considered in these kinds of cases. It’s not a liquid asset, and her family has to live somewhere. And it’s not just her house, but his as well. It seems unfair to punish the family by throwing them out of their home for her actions if they had nothing to do with it, which we must assume until proven otherwise.</p>
<p>The public defender seems like the right thing to me, unless she has some other money she’s not admitting to.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s why she wonders if she still has a job. That would actually be a rational thought, in that case.</p>
<p>" It seems unfair to punish the family by throwing them out of their home for her actions if they had nothing to do with it, which we must assume until proven otherwise."</p>
<p>How fair is it for the general public to have to pay for her defense when she bought a house with $190 k in cash?</p>
<p>I think that most middle class people have to mortgage their home and sell assets to pay for their defense. Why shouldn’t she?</p>
<p>Many people have been forced into poverty to pay for legal defenses even when they were innocent.</p>
<p>It was unfair of Amy Bishop to put her family into this position. Still, her family is ahead of the families whose breadwinners she slaughtered…</p>
<p>That’s certainly true about it being unfair of her to put her family in this position. No arguments there.</p>
<p>Yes, indeed, to your edited point.</p>
<p>He could refinance and get money from the house, that is true. I wonder if she could even find a private attorney in that community who would take her case.</p>
<p>The public defender can only do so much. If the husband indeed loves her and believes what he has expressed so far in public, he could certainly mortgage the house and pay for her additional legal expenses.</p>