Lindsay Clancy Trial

113,355 Views | 1303 Replies | Last: 38 min ago by YokelRidesAgain
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:06a, 9/4/26
AG
deddog said:
FireAg said:
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?

Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.


I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…

The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…
Reply Quote
chickencoupe16
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:08a, 9/4/26
AG
deddog said:
chickencoupe16 said:
Thunderstruck xx said:
Cromagnum said:


The scumbag defense lawyer is crying that the one holdout juror will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence?! How is there reasonable doubt when the evil ***** admitted to murdering her three children?


The scumbag is the juror who swore an oath to uphold the law. The question before the jury is not of they agree with the law or not, it is under the law, did the COMMONWEALTH prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was both guilty or murder and not insane at the time.

I disagree with Massachusetts law. The defendant should have to prove insanity and does in many states but that's not the law on Massachusetts.

Edit: assuming that what's happening is what Redington stated

so hes a scumbag for not believing the defense that their client is insane?


If what the defense says is true and the juror has reasonable doubt but is refusing to apply that to his verdict, then yes. The law should be applied as the juror swore to do. If he was unable, he should have stated as much and been let go from the jury.
Reply Quote
2
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 11:10a, 9/4/26
FireAg said:
deddog said:
FireAg said:
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?

Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.


I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…

The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…

Yates literally had years of history of psychosis including hospitalizations and her physicians telling her husband that she should under no circumstances be left alone with the children. None of that is present in this case.
Reply Quote
13
TexasAggie_02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:11a, 9/4/26
AG
If a judge can legislate from the bench, why can't a juror?
Reply Quote
20
Mathguy64
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:12a, 9/4/26
AG
I would laugh my ass off if the defense is reading the tea leaves wrong and it's really 11-1 for guilty, and they get their magic pill to replace the juror and it comes back guilty.

That might make the Mt Rushmore of legal ****ups
Reply Quote
7
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cromagnum • 11:13a, 9/4/26
AG
Cromagnum said:
Ginormus Ag said:
That 1 male juror's life is over as he knows it. We will know who he is by the end of the day, and he will probably have to move somewhere else, and his life will be ruined more than hers. We are not a serious country anymore.


Yep. Its why nobody wants to serve on a jury anymore, and why everyone winds up with a jury full of tards instead of peers.

Ehh, you end up with a jury of 'tards because both lawyers strike anybody that shows any capability of rational thought as quickly as they can. They want a jury they can get to believe anything, not a jury of people that are smart, can think critically and aren't capable of being molded easily.

Definitely right about a jury on any major case being outed though, that would definitely make me think twice about wanting to be on a jury for sure.
Reply Quote
5
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chickencoupe16 • 11:15a, 9/4/26
AG
chickencoupe16 said:
deddog said:
chickencoupe16 said:
Thunderstruck xx said:
Cromagnum said:


The scumbag defense lawyer is crying that the one holdout juror will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence?! How is there reasonable doubt when the evil ***** admitted to murdering her three children?


The scumbag is the juror who swore an oath to uphold the law. The question before the jury is not of they agree with the law or not, it is under the law, did the COMMONWEALTH prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was both guilty or murder and not insane at the time.

I disagree with Massachusetts law. The defendant should have to prove insanity and does in many states but that's not the law on Massachusetts.

Edit: assuming that what's happening is what Redington stated

so hes a scumbag for not believing the defense that their client is insane?


If what the defense says is true and the juror has reasonable doubt but is refusing to apply that to his verdict, then yes. The law should be applied as the juror swore to do. If he was unable, he should have stated as much and been let go from the jury.


Ok Karen.

Reply Quote
17
Spotted Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmellba99 • 11:15a, 9/4/26
AG
schmellba99 said:
Cromagnum said:
Ginormus Ag said:
That 1 male juror's life is over as he knows it. We will know who he is by the end of the day, and he will probably have to move somewhere else, and his life will be ruined more than hers. We are not a serious country anymore.


Yep. Its why nobody wants to serve on a jury anymore, and why everyone winds up with a jury full of tards instead of peers.

Ehh, you end up with a jury of 'tards because both lawyers strike anybody that shows any capability of rational thought as quickly as they can. They want a jury they can get to believe anything, not a jury of people that are smart, can think critically and aren't capable of being molded easily.

Definitely right about a jury on any major case being outed though, that would definitely make me think twice about wanting to be on a jury for sure.

This, so much this!!! Which is why we should do everything possible to keep ourselves from having our fates decided by a group of 12 'tards.
Covidians, Communists, CNN, FOX, and all other MSM are enemies of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
3
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chickencoupe16 • 11:16a, 9/4/26
AG
chickencoupe16 said:
deddog said:
chickencoupe16 said:
Thunderstruck xx said:
Cromagnum said:


The scumbag defense lawyer is crying that the one holdout juror will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence?! How is there reasonable doubt when the evil ***** admitted to murdering her three children?


The scumbag is the juror who swore an oath to uphold the law. The question before the jury is not of they agree with the law or not, it is under the law, did the COMMONWEALTH prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was both guilty or murder and not insane at the time.

I disagree with Massachusetts law. The defendant should have to prove insanity and does in many states but that's not the law on Massachusetts.

Edit: assuming that what's happening is what Redington stated

so hes a scumbag for not believing the defense that their client is insane?


If what the defense says is true and the juror has reasonable doubt but is refusing to apply that to his verdict, then yes. The law should be applied as the juror swore to do. If he was unable, he should have stated as much and been let go from the jury.

The defense attorney saying that doesnt make it true. It might come as a shock to you but a defense attorney will say such things to get his murderous client free.
You are making an assumption based on hearsay.

Should the defense attorney be outing the juror? Why did we have to know it was a male?
We are making an assessment of the defense attorney based on his actions in court.
See the difference?
Reply Quote
7
2 edits
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 11:17a, 9/4/26
That evidence made the jury's job easier in the Yates case but there are plenty of other cases of NGRI which did not include prior psychotic episodes.

The Deanna Laney case has a bit more resemblance to this one and as far as I know there was not a prior psychiatric history.
Reply Quote
Hardcore Greg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Logos Stick • 11:18a, 9/4/26
Logos Stick said:
aggiehawg said:
What a s***show! Getting comical now.


Nothing can ever top the OJ case though.

This one is far more troubling to me. I see TONS of women, on both sides of the political spectrum hyper-empathizing with her. A ton of conservative women blaming him or saying he did it. The curtain has been pulled back and I am realizing for the first time in my life, that a large % of women are simply just a dangerous combination of stupid and crazy and I want to protect my daughter from that at all costs.

It;s not about the case to me, but the societal reaction. And I am both disgusted and genuinely troubled by it.

I do think there is a chance that this becomes the worst thing to ever happen to the feminist movement tho. I pray something good comes of this. Tons of men are taking note. Not a single one of us ever rallies behind a man who has a legitimate PTSD or schizophrenic episode and kills his family or others. Thats a woman thang.
Reply Quote
30
1 edit
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:18a, 9/4/26
So apparently, at least according to the guy on TV, the emergency stay has to be filed with the on-call justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and they should get a rather quick response.
Reply Quote
3
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hardcore Greg • 11:19a, 9/4/26
AG
Hardcore Greg said:
Logos Stick said:
aggiehawg said:
What a s***show! Getting comical now.


Nothing can ever top the OJ case though.

This one is far more troubling to me. I see TONS of women, on both sides of the political spectrum hyper-empathizing with her. A ton of conservative women blaming him or saying he did it. The curtain has been pulled back and I am realizing for the first time in my life, that a large % of women are simply just a dangerous combination of stupid and crazy and I want to protect my daughter from that at all costs.

It;s not about the case to me, but the societal reaction. And I am both disgusted and genuinely troubled by it.

I do think there is a chance that this becomes the worst thing to ever happen to the feminist movement. Tons of men are taking note.

I am truly fortunate to not know any such women.
Reply Quote
3
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20a, 9/4/26
And and I think the jury should be polled to make sure they are not unanimous on any of the charges. The judge in the first Read case royally screwed up that one but the way the charges were listed on the jury form might have made that difficult because it was so convoluted.

At least this judge seems to be competent.
Reply Quote
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hardcore Greg • 11:20a, 9/4/26
AG
Hardcore Greg said:
Logos Stick said:
aggiehawg said:
What a s***show! Getting comical now.


Nothing can ever top the OJ case though.

This one is far more troubling to me. I see TONS of women, on both sides of the political spectrum hyper-empathizing with her. A ton of conservative women blaming him or saying he did it. The curtain has been pulled back and I am realizing for the first time in my life, that a large % of women are simply just a dangerous combination of stupid and crazy and I want to protect my daughter from that at all costs.

It;s not about the case to me, but the societal reaction. And I am both disgusted and genuinely troubled by it.

I do think there is a chance that this becomes the worst thing to ever happen to the feminist movement. Tons of men are taking note.

Questions for your potential wife:

Do you have a *****?
Do you murder children?

Both are pretty low bars. And yet....
Reply Quote
10
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 11:23a, 9/4/26
AG
FireAg said:
deddog said:
FireAg said:
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?

Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.


I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…

The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…

You keep saying they are similar, but they are not.
This woman had ZERO history of schrizophenia or hearing voices or anything that might suggest she was insane.

Never happened before, and never happened since.
She was on no medication for anything like this.

She did not take medications that she was already prescribed, and researched killing her kids. Did the voices make her do that?

Did the voices ask her to turn the kids over before murdering them?
Did the voices ask her to chase down one of the kids, bring them back and strangle?
Did the voice ask her to jump out the window?
Reply Quote
7
The Collective
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24a, 9/4/26
AG
Social media and online profiles make the crazy much easier to spot. Women also aren't getting married as young, so more time for the crazy bomb to go off.
Reply Quote
4
Hardcore Greg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:25a, 9/4/26
deddog said:
Hardcore Greg said:
Logos Stick said:
aggiehawg said:
What a s***show! Getting comical now.


Nothing can ever top the OJ case though.

This one is far more troubling to me. I see TONS of women, on both sides of the political spectrum hyper-empathizing with her. A ton of conservative women blaming him or saying he did it. The curtain has been pulled back and I am realizing for the first time in my life, that a large % of women are simply just a dangerous combination of stupid and crazy and I want to protect my daughter from that at all costs.

It;s not about the case to me, but the societal reaction. And I am both disgusted and genuinely troubled by it.

I do think there is a chance that this becomes the worst thing to ever happen to the feminist movement. Tons of men are taking note.

I am truly fortunate to not know any such women.

Same...that I know of. I am talking about women exposing themselves online (and not in the good way lol). TONS of them.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ErnestEndeavor • 11:27a, 9/4/26
ErnestEndeavor said:
That evidence made the jury's job easier in the Yates case but there are plenty of other cases of NGRI which did not include prior psychotic episodes.

The Deanna Laney case has a bit more resemblance to this one and as far as I know there was not a prior psychiatric history.

Deanna did as well
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.4b5

Quote:
Laney had a history of experiencing a psychotic episode three years earlier, with "delusions of reference, olfactory hallucinations, choking sensations, intense fear, and a change in sleeping habits." Several weeks after the murders, she began taking antipsychotic medications, and only then did she recognize the enormity of what she'd done and experience loss and regret. She was diagnosed with delusional disorder, grandiose type.

Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:34a, 9/4/26
AG
deddog said:
FireAg said:
deddog said:
FireAg said:
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?

Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.


I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…

The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…

You keep saying they are similar, but they are not.
This woman had ZERO history of schrizophenia or hearing voices or anything that might suggest she was insane.

Never happened before, and never happened since.
She was on no medication for anything like this.

She did not take medications that she was already prescribed, and researched killing her kids. Did the voices make her do that?

Did the voices ask her to turn the kids over before murdering them?
Did the voices ask her to chase down one of the kids, bring them back and strangle?
Did the voice ask her to jump out the window?

Take it up with the jury, man…

Don't know what to tell you…

I am personally against insanity defenses, but the state law is the way it is, and I think MA has every right to do their laws their way, even if I don't agree with it…
Reply Quote
2
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 11:39a, 9/4/26
Was she diagnosed beforehand though? Or were those self reports after the fact? I don't know a whole lot about that case other than she was a fundamentalist homeschool mom who was hyperreligious. I don't know whether or not she ever even went to the doctor.
Reply Quote
1 edit
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 11:40a, 9/4/26
AG
FireAg said:
deddog said:
FireAg said:
deddog said:
FireAg said:
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?

Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.


I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…

The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…

You keep saying they are similar, but they are not.
This woman had ZERO history of schrizophenia or hearing voices or anything that might suggest she was insane.

Never happened before, and never happened since.
She was on no medication for anything like this.

She did not take medications that she was already prescribed, and researched killing her kids. Did the voices make her do that?

Did the voices ask her to turn the kids over before murdering them?
Did the voices ask her to chase down one of the kids, bring them back and strangle?
Did the voice ask her to jump out the window?

Take it up with the jury, man…

Don't know what to tell you…

I am personally against insanity defenses, but the state law is the way it is, and I think MA has every right to do their laws their way, even if I don't agree with it…

My point is this case is not similar to the Andrea Yates case. Andrea Yates was mentally disturbed, and had a proven history. This woman did not.
Reply Quote
6
AGinHI
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:43a, 9/4/26
AG
deddog said:
FireAg said:
deddog said:
FireAg said:
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?

Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.


I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…

The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…

You keep saying they are similar, but they are not.
This woman had ZERO history of schrizophenia or hearing voices or anything that might suggest she was insane.

Never happened before, and never happened since.
She was on no medication for anything like this.

She did not take medications that she was already prescribed, and researched killing her kids. Did the voices make her do that?

Did the voices ask her to turn the kids over before murdering them?
Did the voices ask her to chase down one of the kids, bring them back and strangle?
Did the voice ask her to jump out the window?

Damn near every incarcerated juvenile felon I worked with that was attempting to escape the consequences of their actions would say they were hearing voices.

Upon meeting and informing them I worked with truly psychotic patients who didn't behave as they were now acting and if they wanted my help to stop lying, they would immediately change their tune.

I wouldn't put up with their ****, which was an entirely different experience when most people would, because you absolutely can't question someone's feelings or subjective experience. You can't question their mental health.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:45a, 9/4/26
Reports that the jury was coming back never mind fake news
Reply Quote
1 edit
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 11:45a, 9/4/26
AG
Fenrir said:
ErnestEndeavor said:
That evidence made the jury's job easier in the Yates case but there are plenty of other cases of NGRI which did not include prior psychotic episodes.

The Deanna Laney case has a bit more resemblance to this one and as far as I know there was not a prior psychiatric history.

Deanna did as well
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.4b5

Quote:
Laney had a history of experiencing a psychotic episode three years earlier, with "delusions of reference, olfactory hallucinations, choking sensations, intense fear, and a change in sleeping habits." Several weeks after the murders, she began taking antipsychotic medications, and only then did she recognize the enormity of what she'd done and experience loss and regret. She was diagnosed with delusional disorder, grandiose type.



After she kills her kids some shrink gives her a diagnosis she's insane. How convenient.
Reply Quote
5
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 11:46a, 9/4/26
In that case, she believed God was actively talking to her. All five psychiatrists who interviewed her, including two that the prosecutors hired and an independent psychiatrist hired by the court, all found that she was clinically insane. She was completely delusional and believed God had been giving her signs to kill her kids and one day she interpreted a rock and a frog as signs that God wanted her to kill them, so she did. Completely bat**** crazy.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ErnestEndeavor • 11:48a, 9/4/26
I'm unclear on that. I believe the previous history of psychosis was noted by the prosecution's expert though. Not sure if that was simply through interview or from looking at records.

Also if you go search for it, look at the level of detail of her hallucinations and delusions versus what Lindsay Clancy is claiming.
Reply Quote
1 edit
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:51a, 9/4/26
AG
And Yates was originally found guilty, correct?

Do you believe that insanity is a defense? Should Yates's conviction have stood, or do you agree with the reversal on appeal?

Yes, I agree with the mental history being far better established with Yates than it has been with Clancy, but the day of the murders, they both appeared to operate in fairly similar ways…

With that said, it appears that at least some on the jury did not think that well-documented psychoses diagnoses were required for a NGRI under the MA law…

I may not like it, but that's what they determined, it appears…

How much blame should we lay at the feet of the prosecution for not making a better case to prove sanity? A lot of folks on here are blaming XX-chromosome jurors, but shouldn't some of the ire be focused on the prosecution for not overcoming that in their case?
Reply Quote
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:52a, 9/4/26
How do you "prove sanity" to people that are simultaneously claiming that meticulous planning and forethought is not a sign of sanity?
Reply Quote
5
rocky the dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:53a, 9/4/26
AG

Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
Reply Quote
20
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 11:54a, 9/4/26
In my opinion that could go in Clancey's favor. Usually when someone is faking a psychiatric diagnosis (or lying about a situation in general) they will go overboard in their symptom description in an effort to try to convince the interviewer. What she told psychiatrists about hearing the voice only once and not again indicates at the very least she was not attempting to over-exaggerate. It's possible she could have made it up but the signs of malingering don't seem to be there.
Reply Quote
Serious Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hardcore Greg • 11:55a, 9/4/26
Quote:
I do think there is a chance that this becomes the worst thing to ever happen to the feminist movement tho. I pray something good comes of this. Tons of men are taking note.

first 30 seconds of this video: according to this guys attorney, thats exactly what is happening.

Reply Quote
4
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 11:55a, 9/4/26
AG
Fenrir said:
How do you "prove sanity" to people that are simultaneously claiming that meticulous planning and forethought is not a sign of sanity?

No clue…but that's the challenge in MA, apparently…
Reply Quote
1
chickencoupe16
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deddog • 11:55a, 9/4/26
AG
deddog said:
chickencoupe16 said:
deddog said:
chickencoupe16 said:
Thunderstruck xx said:
Cromagnum said:


The scumbag defense lawyer is crying that the one holdout juror will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence?! How is there reasonable doubt when the evil ***** admitted to murdering her three children?


The scumbag is the juror who swore an oath to uphold the law. The question before the jury is not of they agree with the law or not, it is under the law, did the COMMONWEALTH prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was both guilty or murder and not insane at the time.

I disagree with Massachusetts law. The defendant should have to prove insanity and does in many states but that's not the law on Massachusetts.

Edit: assuming that what's happening is what Redington stated

so hes a scumbag for not believing the defense that their client is insane?


If what the defense says is true and the juror has reasonable doubt but is refusing to apply that to his verdict, then yes. The law should be applied as the juror swore to do. If he was unable, he should have stated as much and been let go from the jury.

The defense attorney saying that doesnt make it true. It might come as a shock to you but a defense attorney will say such things to get his murderous client free.
You are making an assumption based on hearsay.

Should the defense attorney be outing the juror? Why did we have to know it was a male?
We are making an assessment of the defense attorney based on his actions in court.
See the difference?


Only read your first sentence to know you didn't read the first word of my post. Nice try, though.
Reply Quote
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fenrir • 11:56a, 9/4/26
Fenrir said:
How do you "prove sanity" to people that are simultaneously claiming that meticulous planning and forethought is not a sign of sanity?


It's very difficult as we see here. The guy who is convinced the mayor of the town is a reptilian alien species here to plot world domination might have an office full of charts, maps, and plans to assassinate the mayor. Just because somebody is bat**** crazy doesn't mean they can't plan something out.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.