I think we're saying much same thing. If she isn't fed into a woodchipper, saying "she should be fed into a woodchipper" is obviously hyperbole, not incitement.

If she is actually fed into a woodchipper, it's not obvious hyperbole anymore. Someone hearing you say "she should be fed into a woodchipper" and actually acting on that statement is pretty much the definition of "incitement".

Technically, the prosecutor has to prove that your statements were proximal, and that you reasonably believed they could induce the act. But, the jury is weighing that proximity and belief with 20/20 hindsight and video of the mangled corpse.

The definition of "outlandish" is subject to reality. It is much easier to describe a possible outcome as "outlandish" when it has never occurred before. It is much harder to describe that same scenario as "outlandish" when the jury is retching over the crime scene photos while the prosecutor is saying you are to blame.

I'd suggest a bench trial.