FireAg said:

---

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…

---

No offense, but this is obvious.

backintexas2013 said:

---

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

---

And no where have I said she didn't…

Again, I'm wondering out loud what the jury might be thinking and what has caused so many stumbling blocks in deliberations…I am making no claim as to whether or not the husband actually took life with his own hands…

Good grief some of you argue with tunnel vision…

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FireAg said:

---

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…

---

No offense, but this is obvious.

---

None taken…I have a life and job…don't spend hours on end watching trial coverage and popping bon-bons in my face…

I was merely wondering out loud what might be causing the jury to struggle…that's it…

FireAg said:

---

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…

---

Any juror struggling with the "husband angle" should be held in contempt for not staying off social media.

Welp…the jury is struggling because of something, my friend…

FireAg said:

---

Welp…the jury is struggling because of something, my friend…

---

It's societal pressure. No jury today on a high level case is not going to know what's happening outside. The hoards of psychopath women surrounding the court creates a weird feeling for the women on the jury and then over time, while they are isolated from family and friends and discussing the case, end up developing some sick form of empathy too.

In Massachusetts an insanity plea is essentially default accepted as true, unlike in the vast majority of states, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove a person that killed their 3 kids is in fact sane. That's what they are debating. 11 people apparently believe that it is believable that she was so out of touch with reality that she didn't know what she was doing and one person is saying she was definitively competent enough to know what she was doing was wrong, which is why she sent her husband out of the house.

I get that…I also think that the question of sanity has been a real struggle, based on the evidence presented…and perhaps (whether right or wrong) due to outside influences not necessarily presented in court…

The jury "struggling" doesn't mean 12 people are all vacillating on a razor's edge. Ten people could have been convinced of their positions since deliberations began, and two convinced just as ardently in the other direction. Or any other permutation.

My last jury service included a guy who was clearly a not-guilty from go. Had he not been in the room, we would have been done in 15 minutes. Instead, it was a hung jury. Not because it was a close call. Just because a juror with a chip on his shoulder against wealthy people wasn't going to apply the law.

The only thing you can really conclude is that the defense managed to get some jurors, and so did the prosecution. The hung jury was probably a foregone conclusion from the jump.

aggietony2010 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

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…

---

Any juror struggling with the "husband angle" should be held in contempt for not staying off social media.

---

This is correct. Neither side has said anything to point a finger towards the husband. If you feel this way, you lied during jury selection or have been on social media during the trial.

FireAg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FireAg said:

---

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…

---

No offense, but this is obvious.

---

None taken…I have a life and job…don't spend hours on end watching trial coverage and popping bon-bons in my face…

I was merely wondering out loud what might be causing the jury to struggle…that's it…

---

There are 3 or maybe 4 camps of people:

One camp is that she is guilty of murdering her children by calling them down to the basement one by one and strangling them with exercise bands which is a fact that she, nor her defense team, nor the prosecution are contesting and she premeditated it. Similarly, there are those that dont care if she was insane or not when she did it, she deserves life in prison.

Another camp thinks that she did kill the children, but since she was in a state of psychosis at the time, she should not be found criminally responsible and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a psych ward for an indeterminate amount of time, but could be as few as 5-10 years, since she could be released if they find that she isn't insane anymore.

The last camp is women who have been brainwashed by social media algorithms, true crime documentaries, and feminism that think that there is no way that she could have done it and she was framed by her husband based on pretty much no evidence and only feelz, and doing so much as wearing pink and standing in solidarity with her outside of the courthouse

There seems to be one of the last group on the jury holding out from a verdict.

hth

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FireAg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FireAg said:

---

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…

---

No offense, but this is obvious.

---

None taken…I have a life and job…don't spend hours on end watching trial coverage and popping bon-bons in my face…

I was merely wondering out loud what might be causing the jury to struggle…that's it…

---

There are 3 or maybe 4 camps of people:

One camp is that she is guilty of murdering her children by calling them down to the basement one by one and strangling them with exercise bands which is a fact that she, nor her defense team, nor the prosecution are contesting and she premeditated it. Similarly, there are those that dont care if she was insane or not when she did it, she deserves life in prison.

Another camp thinks that she did kill the children, but since she was in a state of psychosis at the time, she should not be found criminally responsible and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a psych ward for an indeterminate amount of time, but could be as few as 5-10 years, since she could be released if they find that she isn't insane anymore.

The last camp is women who have been brainwashed by social media algorithms, true crime documentaries, and feminism that think that there is no way that she could have done it and she was framed by her husband based on pretty much no evidence and only feelz, and doing so much as wearing pink and standing in solidarity with her outside of the courthouse

There seems to be one of the last group on the jury holding out from a verdict.

hth

---

There's another group which is the one I'm in. I think she killed her kids, I think she was in a medicated and postpartum induced psychosis, and she should be found guilty because the insanity defense is incoherent at best and she needs to be in prison for life because anyone who has the capability of an act like this regardless of their state of mind is forever a danger to society

I'm in whatever camp thinks she's lucky to live in Massachusetts and not in a state where she would have to prove insanity. I don't think either side really proved anything in regards to the mental health aspects of the case and the burden is on the prosecution there to prove sanity in Massachusetts. I don't like the way Massachusetts does it because all the defense really has to do is muddy the waters enough on insanity and they get the benefit of the doubt.

That's why I think the reasonable doubt is on her side based on Massachusetts law and I would probably vote for NGRI based on what the law requires. If I was on a Texas jury I would probably vote the opposite because the law is different. I don't think she proved insanity and I don't think the state proved sanity. This is a tough case as much as social media wants to oversimplify it. I don't have a damn clue what was going on in her head at the time but it's on the burden of the state to prove what was, and we don't know.

I know from the case I mentioned on the last page out of Texas, the woman thought God was telling her to kill her kids and five different psychiatrists testified she was legitimately crazy, including one appointed by the judge and two hired by the prosecutor. Her husband actually walked in on her when he heard one of the kids scream and she was able to convince him everything was fine. She was in a state of insanity but also coherent and able to have thoughtful conversations to cover up what she was doing. How that works I don't know. But that's what all of the psychiatrists testified to. It seems like that may have been what happened here.

The prosecutors on this case put on a case that was lacking in focus and organization. Their opening statement differed from their closing argument. It's hard to win a jury to your side when you have the burden of proof but can't keep your own theory of the case straight.

I was with you until this part:

Quote:

---

Her husband actually walked in on her when he heard one of the kids scream and she was able to convince him everything was fine.

---

What? Where did you get that from?

chickencoupe16 said:

---

I was with you until this part:

Quote:

---

Her husband actually walked in on her when he heard one of the kids scream and she was able to convince him everything was fine.

---

What? Where did you get that from?

---

I was talking about the Texas case. A Fundamentalist hyper-religious woman thought the voices in her head were God telling her to murder her kids. While she was beating her toddler's head in with a rock her husband walked in because he heard the kid scream. She blocked the view from him and made an excuse, convincing him the kid was okay. Despite the obvious plan and deception she was still found to be legally insane throughout all three attacks. The toddler actually lived but her older sons both died.

I brought that story up to illustrate how someone in a state of legal insanity can still act deceptively and try to cover up what they are doing.

She's killed three kids. If you think law or anything could give her an out on that then you can't be helped. She lived a privilege life, had all the care in the world. In fact she didn't show up for therapy, but yet got the drugs for it. Her husband got her a nanny for god sakes and would run errands for her. She straggled those poor kids one by one. She asked how she looked when she came to after murdering her kids. She researched how to get her husband away. She worked out every morning. I can't for the life of me understand thinking this woman deserves anything other than what she did to those poor kids.

Missed that. My bad. Carry on.

Some what similar situation with Yates…

Yates was found guilty in 2002, and later found NGRI on appeal in 2006…

I think there is a real chance that NGRI is the prevailing thought in the jury room…or at least it has been for several days…and one side has won other over to the other side save for one…whatever that side might be…

But ultimately, I don't think this jury as a whole sees this as a slam dunk case…

All well and good…quite possibly spot on…except that the jury has struggled, so far, to reach that same conclusion…

What my ultimate question is…why?

It will either be NGRI or a mistrial. Thats pretty much been a foregone conclusion since deliberations went to day 2.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

There seems to be one of the last group on the jury holding out from a verdict.

---

I've seen several people post this, and it's bass ackwards. The hold out is the one guilty vote. That's why defense counsel wanted it removed.

He knows as much as the rest of us, which is nothing.

Could be either way.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

It will either be NGRI or a mistrial. Thats pretty much been a foregone conclusion since deliberations went to day 2.

---

Knowing very little about the case and just going on that point alone, I absolutely agree with you…that's where this was headed the moment it wasn't settled on day 1 of deliberations…

I will be interested in understanding the jury's thought process during the deliberations…

I don't understand this jury.

I've been foreman twice and neither of the juries I was on gave a sh!!t about the facts or the law. All they wanted to know was who was the a-hole responsible for them serving on a jury.

If those trials lasted more than a couple days I can't imagine how angry they would have become. The pitchforks would have come out for either the accused or the prosecutor.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This isn't true at all, the physical evidence that she killed the kids is extensive and incontrovertible.

First, there's the video and cell phone proof that her husband was not home when the murders were committed. And because there is definitive proof she WAS home at the time, and NO evidence any other adult was, that in and of itself effectively proves she did it.

Second, fibers from her clothes were all over the kids and the exercise bands used to kill the kids.

Third, her smart watch tracked her trips to and from the basement with time intervals that match the estimated murder time frames exactly.

Fourth, the blood patterns prove the wounds she had were self inflicted.

And on and on and on. There is ZERO doubt she killed the kids.

Martin Cash said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

There seems to be one of the last group on the jury holding out from a verdict.

---

I've seen several people post this, and it's bass ackwards. The hold out is the one guilty vote. That's why defense counsel wanted it removed.

---

I have still not seen ANYONE here or elsewhere explain why this has to be the case. The defense wanting one juror dismissed does not mean there is only one juror voting guilty. It could simply mean there is something that was said about that juror that they believe sets up for an appeal.

I was on a murder jury. We were 10-2 guilty & the 2 hold outs were hung up on "the other guy in the car" and if he would be charged, too. We had to go over & over the jury instructions that clearly stated we were to only consider THIS GUY. We got to 12-0 but it was a struggle.

I haven't followed this at all but I'm amazed at the number of women and apparently people on here (just scanning) who are ignoring the only thing that matters...which is she and her defense attorney said she did it.

WTF are the rest of you even arguing since they admit it? Can we strip your right to vote as well? Total clowns.

From Reuters tonight:

Quote:

---

She has admitted to strangling her three children to death on January 24, 2023, with exercise bands in the basement of their home in the Boston suburb of Duxbury. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to take her own life that left her paralyzed.

---

Execute her ass.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

There seems to be one of the last group on the jury holding out from a verdict.

---

I've seen several people post this, and it's bass ackwards. The hold out is the one guilty vote. That's why defense counsel wanted it removed.

---

I have still not seen ANYONE here or elsewhere explain why this has to be the case. The defense wanting one juror dismissed does not mean there is only one juror voting guilty. It could simply mean there is something that was said about that juror that they believe sets up for an appeal.

---

Wow. So you think if 11 were voting guilty and one was voting not guilty, the defense would want to replace the one voting not guilty and get their client convicted? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

There seems to be one of the last group on the jury holding out from a verdict.

---

I've seen several people post this, and it's bass ackwards. The hold out is the one guilty vote. That's why defense counsel wanted it removed.

---

I have still not seen ANYONE here or elsewhere explain why this has to be the case. The defense wanting one juror dismissed does not mean there is only one juror voting guilty. It could simply mean there is something that was said about that juror that they believe sets up for an appeal.

---

Wow. So you think if 11 were voting guilty and one was voting not guilty, the defense would want to replace the one voting not guilty and get their client convicted? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

---

One, that's not what I said. Though interestingly in context it is about the only scenario that makes what the judge said make any sense at all. I said your Y follows from X line of thought is baseless. You are drawing conclusions not in evidence. There is no reason to naturally assume one point from the other.

There are any number of scenarios that could be in play. All I'm saying is there is no natural reason to assume what you are assuming.

Watching these trials from Massachusetts - I would do everything in my power to not serve on a jury there.

I know the court strives to break a hung jury, but this is ridiculous. And if being thrown off the jury because you won't change your mind is fair? Crazy.

Definitely going to be interesting to see how this winds up…

Today is day 7…I would be moderately surprised if the prosecution gets the win here, but we shall see…

Wonder how this went down? Does the juror know they are reported? I hope they don't back down. And could they be in trouble if it's found.they aren't applying the law?

Quote:

---

And could they be in trouble if it's found.they aren't applying the law?

---

Good question. I'm thinking about the opposite. I don't believe there is a law that says you have to change your mind, just consider an option. So, if juror says they considered it, held their opposing vote & then got replaced - would that be grounds for some sort of lawsuit on said juror's part?

Not going to question the individual juror.