I expect the prosecution will first set up the three scenes with lots of demonstrative evidence. I'd expect that will be mostly a US show, unless some Afghanis were involved in the forensics and ballistics. I'd expect the video and sensor evidence to come in at this point. All of that should be fairly cold and methodical stuff.

Depending how trial counsel sequences it, photos of each deceased and forensics (autopsies, if any) on each one will come in. The prosecution should show absence of weapons, and absence of casings not associated with Bales' weapon; a prevention for some "I was shot at" defense. Some media articles have said that bodies were moved from the scenes. So, some gray areas may exist. However, we do not know this.

At some point, Afghanis will have to testify as to the photos of the dead bodies; and also as a PID on the shooter (or shooters, as some Afghanis still seem to be claiming). That testimony will probably be videolinked. There might be some problem in showing what the shooter did with each deceased if the bodies were moved. Then, Afghani witnesses would have to relate that story - which is fine, so long as they are not inconsistent and hyperbolic.

This area will be hot. E.g., how does defense counsel handle pictures of dead kids ripped apart with modern munitions, with brains and guts hanging out. The usual method (if defense counsel cannot keep them out) is to keep going over them gruesome detail by gruesome detail until the members of the court are desensitized to them.

Personally, I've never much liked the insanity defense - it frees violent people. So, as I've said here at SWC, "guilty but mentally ill" should be allowed as an alternative jury finding. But, that requires statutory change as we've done in Michigan. That linked post is in a PTSD discussion thread, Post-combat stress as a defense. BLUF: PTSD is not a defense, but it can be a mitigating factor.

There we even have Boondoggle and Polarbear1605 - including myself, a real group of Neanderthal knuckle-draggers. BTW: As I notice now, the Great White Bear had a chance to deny his foundling story (from the Arctic to Quantico), but didn't.

If you take a gander at your Manual for Courts-Martial, you'll see that "deminished capacity" reduces premeditated murder to unpremeditated murder, but no lower. That's OK with me if that where the facts lead me.

Of course, the death penalty requires premeditated murder with full capacity - so "snapping" is a problem for trial counsel.

We've still a long way to travel here.

Regards

Mike