"Having said that, I also don't find the report from LinkTV to be very plausible."

I agree. Sounds like urban legend.

It is clear that there is a lot of manipulation surrounding the use and application of PTSD. The defense in the above case invoked it, but didn't claim the defendant had an actual diagnosis of PTSD, as I understand it. What the defense lawyer did (quite craftily of course) was say that the reason why the man murdered his son MIGHT be because he was a Gulf War vet suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, but he was going to "accept responsibility for his actions".

Because of the current cycle of hero worship of war vets in the post 9/11 era, he was able to play to jury's sympathies for vets, but by pleading guilty to a lesser charge, the defendent got off with a 2nd degree murder conviction instead.

This flies in the face of other recent murders of infants by women in our area, who both were convicted of 1st degree murder, even though both were certified as mentally incompetent to stand trial.

So apparently, if you are a vet who invokes PTSD, you can get away with murdering babies on a lesser charge than women charged with the same crimes, and certified mentally incompetent.