From: rose@cecily.UUCP (Rose M. Delckum)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: DOOL: Kimberly and Marlena
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:49:58 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The New Alaska Riviera
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <9212211954.AA06658@lynx.corp.frame.com>, James Drew writes:


Hi Jim!  What's up?

> Frankly, I would expect any decent judge to throw out Marlena's testimony
> on conflict of interest grounds, at least any of the testimony relating
> directly to Kim, and not to MPD in general.  Anything she says in favor of
> Kim's mental state should be immediately suspect.


     I meant to type this stuff in as a reply to the update, but
accidentally deleted it, but it's on the same subject (Thursday's
? episode and Marlena and Kim's discussion)

1.  What is Marlena's problem?  If a judge doesn't believe her
(not too likely since MPD is highly publicized and has been used
successfully as a criminal defense in the past) why can't they
get other shrinks to testify in addition to Marlena?  Why can't
Carly tell the judge Kim's a great person and get her 3 hours
community service like she did Bo? :-)

2.  At one point Marlena was telling Kim the other personalities
would disappear and integrate.  First I would like to state I
didn't watch all the episode, so this point may have been brought
up.  Second, I am not a psychologist, but at one point I was
considering it and was really fascinated by MPD and read
everything I could get my hands on on the subject.  So, on to my
point.  Marlena told Kim 'they' would go away.  But isn't she
forgetting that in MPD, there is an original personality that is
fractured.  That means Claire and Lacey are just small parts of
the personality that was originally Kimberly Brady.  But so is
Kim.  She's a personality fragment also.  In most cases,
integration is very difficult, and often doesn't last.  But *all*
of the personalities are integrated.  Kim as we know her would be
integrated with Lacey and Claire to form a new personality

3.  Is Kim going to plead not guilty by reason of insanity?  And
if that is the case, doesn't the judge usually require that the
defendant be institutionalized?  Especially in something like MPD
where the necessary therapy is so intense....

Roserooni the picky one
> 
> ------------------------------
>                              |     "What are the odds?!" said Tam, waving a
> Jim Drew                     | piece of paper tape.  "*Three* fortunes in a
> jrd@frame.com                | row, and *all* the same!"
> (Furry: Randy Puritan)       |     I took the tape and read it aloud.
> "Innocent, but not naive."   |     "Hershey... Hershey..."
> B(2)h t c k s g+(p) rv p e   |     "He has *Ch*inese *c*ookies confused with
> S8/5 g l+ y+ o+ a+ u++- j++  | *ch*ocolate *k*isses," I told Ron.
> {opinions: mine != frame's}  |     "His alliterative attempts are *always*
>                              | annoying," Ron replied.
>                              |		- Marc Lynx, "Gaol House Rock"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can blow out a candle        |      Rose Delckum
 But you can't blow out a fire,   |      rose@cecily.UUCP
 Once the flames begin to catch   |      rose%cecily@uunet.uu.net    
 The wind will blow them higher"  |      uunet!coplex!cecily!rose
             --Peter Gabriel      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps