Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time.

---

And also for the thousandth time, she'll be out within a decade. She will not be there for a very long time.

Quote:

---

The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.

---

You have no evidence for this statement and recent times have shown there is for more evidence to point towards her being out before this.

She's already saying she hasn't heard voices since and all the psychologists who have testified say she has been doing everything doctors have asked since the murders and has shown no signs of psychosis since.

Vessel said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time.

---

And also for the thousandth time, she'll be out within a decade. She will not be there for a very long time.

Quote:

---

The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.

---

You have no evidence for this statement and recent times have shown there is for more evidence to point towards her being out before this.

She's already saying she hasn't heard voices since and all the psychologists who have testified say she has been doing everything doctors have asked since the murders and has shown no signs of psychosis since.

---

Just like Constance Fisher. Killed her three kids. Institutionalized. Released. Had three more kids. Killed them too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Fisher

FWIW, a study on NGRI acquittees in Virginia:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24377912/

Quote:

---

The authors evaluated a state-wide sample of 127 NGRI acquittees released into the community after spending a mean of 61.63 months (SD = 76.54) in the hospital. One hundred individuals were committed to the hospital for lengthier treatment (M hospital time = 77.23 months, SD = 79.84), but 27 individuals were released to the community after a relatively short hospital stay (M hospital time = 5.60 months, SD = 3.01).

---

I'm not going to put much stock into the idea that NGRI verdict means she is going away for anything that even closely resembles a meaningful stay in a psych hospital.

techno-ag said:

---

Vessel said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time.

---

And also for the thousandth time, she'll be out within a decade. She will not be there for a very long time.

Quote:

---

The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.

---

You have no evidence for this statement and recent times have shown there is for more evidence to point towards her being out before this.

She's already saying she hasn't heard voices since and all the psychologists who have testified say she has been doing everything doctors have asked since the murders and has shown no signs of psychosis since.

---

Just like Constance Fisher. Killed her three kids. Institutionalized. Released. Had three more kids. Killed them too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Fisher

---

Holy crap that is horrific. And her husband stayed with her and had three more kids and was shocked when she did it again? WTF

Wonder if that case was the inspiration for "Shutter Island"?

Maybe. There's some similarities.

Deanna Laney was legit crazy, stoned two of her sons to death and left her baby with severe brain damage. She was found NGRI and was released after spending 6.5 years in a Texas mental facility. Before she was released she was already being granted off-campus furloughs by the facility staff to go shopping and out to dinner with her parents.

It's entirely possible Clancey spends a very short time in a mental health hold especially considering she's already in an inpatient facility. This idea that she would spend forever locked up is just not realistic. If she wants to get out, she will get out.

Andrea Yates does not want to be released which is possibly the only thing keeping her locked up.

I'm struggling to understand why the defense would be upset over a lone juror holding things up if this juror was the lone juror wanting an NGRI verdict…

Stranger things can happen, I suppose, but I'm having trouble squaring that one in my mind…

He doesn't know either way. He admitted as much to the press afterwards.

Dude is checking boxes when he can for possible appeal.

If a juror is not following the reasonable doubt standard that had to mean they are voting not guilty when they really should be voting guilty. And their reason is that they have a tiny bit of doubt. So they are not following reasonable doubt.

It would make no sense the other way. If someone is voting guilty, then they likely have no reasonable doubt.

So I would assume it's 11 guilty vs 1 not guilty via insanity.

Fenrir said:

---

He doesn't know either way. He admitted as much to the press afterwards.

Dude is checking boxes when he can for possible appeal.

---

Why make a motion to remove that juror, then? If there's a chance that one juror is what could hang the jury, why roll the dice to remove them?

Also struggling to believe only one juror has stalled the verdict for this many days…gut tells me multiple jurors, at some point, have seen this case differently…

FireAg said:

---

I'm struggling to understand why the defense would be upset over a lone juror holding things up if this juror was the lone juror wanting an NGRI verdict…

Stranger things can happen, I suppose, but I'm having trouble squaring that one in my mind…

---

Yeah, makes little sense to me as well. Sounds like the movie plot of Runaway Jury with jurors wearing pink and such. Jury is not sequestered. And that defense counsel was way too agitated to be making a pro forma objection for preserving issues on appeal. (Old joke about their being no difference between saying you object versus strenuously objecting. Like that makes a difference to a judge. Pro hint: it doesn't.)

Haven't really paid much attention to this case because it was boring to me. But the post trial verdict watch has been a s***show in my view.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

If a juror is not following the reasonable doubt standard that had to mean they are voting not guilty when they really should be voting guilty. And their reason is that they have a tiny bit of doubt. So they are not following reasonable doubt.

It would make no sense the other way. If someone is voting guilty, then they likely have no reasonable doubt.

So I would assume it's 11 guilty vs 1 not guilty via insanity.

---

Well if the defense thought someone was disregarding the reasonable doubt standard to the defense's detriment, then they think the juror would be for a guilty verdict despite that juror having reasonable doubt.

But like someone pointed out above, this is just a defense tactic for a potential appeal.

Easy. Hormones, perimenopause, menopause. Nobody warned that women actually go crazy.

Hollywood remake? 12 Angry Men updated to 2 Hormonal Women?

10 men off themselves while serving jury duty with Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.

Defense attorney has been agitated the whole trial.

I haven't followed it either…just get the FN alerts while the jury deliberates so I checked this thread…

My wife has followed it somewhat closely, and she feels like there is more to the story as it relates to the husband, but I have no opinion one way or the other…

I'm waiting for the Netflix documentary…

FireAg said:

---

My wife has followed it somewhat closely, and she feels like there more to the story as it relates to the husband

---

Shocking absolutely nobody who has been in the thread…

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

How in the world to get 11 not guilty votes in a case like this?

Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?

If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.

In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.

---

For the thousandth time, she won't walk in any scenario. Literally or figuratively.

People are using acquit as shorthand for "NG by reason of insanity". She's not going to be found not guilty of killing the children.

---

I guess I should have worded my post better. Anything shy of spending the rest of her life in prison would be walking IMO. Murdering three children should be a "spend the rest of your life in prison" auto-bid.

She'll be out in five years tops. I mean she's already not insane for some reason a.k.a. she was never insane.

Almost everybody understands that people are using "acquitted" as shorthand for NGRI.

There is only a small special select few who are in the "ackshually" crowd.

Vessel said:

---

Almost everybody understands that people are using "acquitted" as shorthand for NGRI.

There is only a small special select few who are in the "ackshually" crowd.

---

And they all wear pink.

Vessel said:

---

FireAg said:

---

My wife has followed it somewhat closely, and she feels like there more to the story as it relates to the husband

---

Shocking absolutely nobody who has been in the thread…

---

Add another tick in the "reasons to repeal the 19th" box.

Prosecution: she did it
Judge: she did it
Defense experts: she did it
Defendant: I did it but was too crazy to know what I was doing

Women: the husband did it!

Fenrir said:

---

Prosecution: she did it
Judge: she did it
Defense experts: she did it
Defendant: I did it but was too crazy to know what I was doing

Women: the husband did it!

---

Not even remotely what I said…

Someone can be complicit without committing the actual act…

Manson was convicted of murdering Sharon Tate, and he wasn't even there…so don't act like it's unprecedented…

The only anecdote I can add from a personal standpoint is this:

I worked with Rusty Yates at NASA…he did NOT drown his kids…Andrea did…

But that dude was a master manipulator in general…weird beliefs…strong convictions…I do believe he shares some level of responsibility even though he was never tried…

But…that's my opinion based on what I experienced…nothing more…

Fenrir said:

---

Prosecution: she did it
Judge: she did it
Defense experts: she did it
Defendant: I did it but was too crazy to know what I was doing

Women: the husband did it!

---

For the sake of argument (I haven't followed all the details outside of this one piece)

Prosecution: She did it
Judge: I am not allowing the trial to allow for the question of whether she did it or not to be considered. Assume she's guilty.
Defense: We tried to get the judge to allow the question of whether or not she even did this to be considered, but the judge denied it, so we're going to have to plea insanity
Defendant: whacked out her mind

PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES: When she woke up she didn't remember anything. We told her what she did. She was distraught. She then tried to recount what happened after we told her what she did. Yes, it is possible for memory loss victims to create false memories after being told what happened.... but for some reason we're very convinced that didn't happen here and we're counting this as a "confession".

The prosecution witnesses gave testimony that created reasonable doubt. At the end of the day, the only "evidence" that she did this was the husband telling the cops that his (then unconscious wife) admitted she did it.. It's really a crap case start to finish. Cops did a terrible job. Prosecution's terrible performance was based off the crap they were handed.

The Banned said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Prosecution: she did it
Judge: she did it
Defense experts: she did it
Defendant: I did it but was too crazy to know what I was doing

Women: the husband did it!

---

For the sake of argument (I haven't followed all the details outside of this one piece)

Prosecution: She did it
Judge: I am not allowing the trial to allow for the question of whether she did it or not to be considered. Assume she's guilty.
Defense: We tried to get the judge to allow the question of whether or not she even did this to be considered, but the judge denied it, so we're going to have to plea insanity
Defendant: whacked out her mind

PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES: When she woke up she didn't remember anything. We told her what she did. She was distraught. She then tried to recount what happened after we told her what she did. Yes, it is possible for memory loss victims to create false memories after being told what happened.... but for some reason we're very convinced that didn't happen here and we're counting this as a "confession".

The prosecution witnesses gave testimony that created reasonable doubt. At the end of the day, the only "evidence" that she did this was the husband telling the cops that his (then unconscious wife) admitted she did it.. It's really a crap case start to finish. Cops did a terrible job. Prosecution's terrible performance was based off the crap they were handed.

---

I didn't even know that level of detail…if true…interesting…Netflix will have a field day with this one…

She could have pled not guilty. She chose not to plead not guilty. No way judge can stop her from pleading not guilty

I think the 11 are voting for NGRI. The hold out wanted a higher charge.

Quote:

---

We tried to get the judge to allow the question of whether or not she even did this to be considered, but the judge denied it, so we're going to have to plea insanity

---

In what world does this make sense?

It's literal nonsense

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I think the 11 are voting for NGRI. The hold out wanted a higher charge.

---

Knowing next to NOTHING about this case, that's just the "gut" feeling I have as well…

But my gut feeling and $6 will get you a Grande Caramel Macchiato at Starbucks…

I still don't see why the judge would read the instructions on reasonable doubt if the holdout was voting to convict. The situation reads 11-1 in favor of prosecution to me. The holdout being someone who is fabricating any and all possibilities that could be perceived as doubt.

Fenrir said:

---

It's literal nonsense

---

To YOU…maybe…

But if the jury saw it your way, why has it taken so long? Shoulda been a slam dunk, right?

Look stud…I haven't followed **** on this case…sounds like you've followed wall-to-wall coverage, so maybe you're spot on…

But the fact remains that most slam dunk guilty verdicts come back pretty quick (unless you're OJ)…this one is taking quite some time, so it's not unreasonable to think that the jury may have struggled more than you obviously did…and if they have struggled, then it's not impossible to think that they could have struggled due to the doubt potentially raised by the "husband angle", whatever that was…

Good Poster said:

---

I still don't see why the judge would read the instructions on reasonable doubt if the holdout was voting to convict. The situation reads 11-1 in favor of prosecution to me. The holdout being someone who is fabricating any and all possibilities that could be perceived as doubt.

---

Very possible…but then why would the defense be so animated about it? Is the defense putting on an act just for the sake of appeal? Very well could be, but I struggle to understand what they could be angling for, as it relates to a future appeal, by getting all animated about a single juror…

We will eventually find out either way…very odd wrinkle today though, in my opinion…

The only question is insanity or not. She did it. Only a small percentage of idiots think she didn't.