Brittany Pilkington suffocated her three children in 2014.
On Tuesday, the team of lawyers representing Brittany Pilkington of Bellefontaine attacked the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision of having the woman evaluated by a psychiatrist. Pilkington’s lawyers argued that the court-ordered psych eval violates several constitutional rights.
Brittany Pilkington Murders Pinned to Low I.Q. and Brain Damage
Pilkington’s case has been under revision ever since her first court appearance in 2016. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bellefontaine woman’s case, here are the facts.
At the beginning of 2015, Ohio authorities arrested the woman and later charged her with three counts of aggravated murder.
According to court documents, prior to her arrest, Brittany Pilkington was a stay-at-home wife, caring for her three children. Her husband, 44-year-old Joseph Pilkington, married Brittany several years before the woman got pregnant with the couple’s firstborn.
Although their marriage was legitimate, the authorities established that Pilkington convinced his future wife to have sexual relations when she was just a teenager. Her husband was sentenced in 2016 after pleading guilty to the charge.
After their third child was born, things changed between Brittany and her husband. According to an Ohio prosecutor, the Bellefontaine woman became jealous because Joseph spent more time with their children than with her.
In late 2014, a frustrated Brittany Pilkington took matters into her own hands. According to the police report, the woman used a blanket to suffocate her children. More than that, the woman claimed that she used the blanket because she couldn’t stand seeing their eyes.
Conclusion
Following Brittany’s confession, the authorities surmised that the woman’s low I.Q. and brain damage contributed to the murders.
A court document suggests that Pilkington suffocated her children because she was more than convinced that they’re going to abuse women when they grow up.
For the moment, Brittany Pilkington remains in prison, awaiting the jury’s decision.
Image source: Pixabay
