Comments on: Long Island: “Woman who drowned her 3 kids in tub in 2008…”

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:59:11 +0000

Clearly she needs to sue the manufacturers of the bathtub for making a defective product.

By: Jack Olson

Jack Olson — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:50:51 +0000

Jim Collins, the babydaddies filed the suit against Nassau County, arguing successfully that the county welfare office failed to protect the children. It would not, of course, occur to them that they failed to protect their children, too.

By: blhlls

blhlls — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:20:20 +0000

I don’t know how the law in New York works. However, if she has some kind of conservator or entity responsible for her affairs, it would be a breach of that person’s duty not to pursue the claim if the argument can be made in good faith under applicable law.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:11:16 +0000

Headlines like this help explain why there is a lot of jury nullification with insanity defenses. Perhaps 50% of violent defendants meet some sort of definition of “insane,” but jurors won’t buy it, unless they are grasping for an excuse to let off a defendant they sympathize with.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:06:22 +0000

She’s not getting any money. Her seeking money is hardly a big crime in comparison to killing her children. I think the “you have some nerve” indignation is hysterical. She killed her kids. Nothing else she does in this life is going to raise much ire with me.

Please note: this guy is not a tort lawyer, assuming it is this guy: http://www.peterjkelley.com/peterjkelley.html

Trust me, this claim is going nowhere. The lawyer is not a smart guy getting around the system. He is a guy making a reach, probably to get his name out there or something.

Rob, there are lots of bad lawyers. That job that you do? It has people that are awful too, right?

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:47:45 +0000

The Surrogate’s Court has not made any determination yet and she did admit she killed her kids, so even though she was not convicted for their murder by reason of mental disease or defect, her admission should bar her from recovery, in addition, though not raised in the article, couldn’t the children’s estates look to recover damages from the mother for being the cause of the deaths?

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:19:11 +0000

@Rob: “Blithering idiot?” How so? Here’s an attorney who sees the chance to earn $100K for a bit of legal work. He’s not lacking smarts, but something — or several somethings — else.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:59:15 +0000

I’m more interested in who has to pay the $350,000 and why?

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:21:43 +0000

“…her attorneys say she should not be subject to laws that bar convicts from profiting from their crimes.”

Not to be rude (okay, maybe a little rude,) but this is the sort of thing that makes so many of us distrustful of and disdainful towards lawyers. Do law schools or bar associations have any standards anymore? Do law licenses mean anything, since obviously blithering idiots can get them?

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:21:32 +0000

She did all the work. Shouldn’t she share in the profit?

Bob