No Spin Ag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

I don't understand why the insanity defense even exists.

Insane or not, murderers should be locked up.

---

I think it should only be used for death penalty eligibility.

If guilty because insane, ok we lock you up and don't keel you.

---

Agreed.

The jurists said they all agreed she killed her kids. Right there, at best, she needs to live the rest of her life in an asylum. She should never be amongst non murderers ever again.

---

I respectfully disagree with this. A man or a woman who kills others because their brain chemistry was off (virtually every serial killer and school shooter ever) needs to go to prison. Even though it may not be entirely fair that they went schizzo or psychotic or whatever.

---

Good point.

And seeing as how there's prisons for all types, I'm sure there's one for people like her that they could put her in.

To me, as long as she's not in the general public, I couldn't care less where she spends the rest of her life.

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

I don't understand why the insanity defense even exists.

Insane or not, murderers should be locked up.

---

I think it should only be used for death penalty eligibility.

If guilty because insane, ok we lock you up and don't keel you.

---

Agreed.

The jurists said they all agreed she killed her kids. Right there, at best, she needs to live the rest of her life in an asylum. She should never be amongst non murderers ever again.

---

I respectfully disagree with this. A man or a woman who kills others because their brain chemistry was off (virtually every serial killer and school shooter ever) needs to go to prison. Even though it may not be entirely fair that they went schizzo or psychotic or whatever.

---

Good point.

And seeing as how there's prisons for all types, I'm sure there's one for people like her that they could put her in.

To me, as long as she's not in the general public, I couldn't care less where she spends the rest of her life.

---

Hill08 said:

---

I said this before but the case was over before it started because the prosecution allowed these Karen, liberal nuts on the jury. Exactly like allowing 9 of 12 jurors in the OJ when they are black. Remember the interview of 4 of the OJ jurors saying they would NEVER vote guilty. Some of these DA's are completely clueless

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

The justice deserved will never happen under Massachusetts law. You could put any jury you like, but its highly improbable you'll ever get a unanimous jury voter of guilty under their law. She'll either keep getting hung juries or a NGInsanity verdict in Mass. Probably why defense was so willing to admit she did it.

In Texas she'd have been guilty the first time around simply because of the difference in law. Defense would have fought harder and not admitted anything though.

---

Benny the Jet Rodriguez said:

---

Yep. Anyone who commits murder is insane. They have to be. Outside of self-defense situations, a sane person can't be capable of murdering someone.

---

Benny the Jet Rodriguez said:

---

Yep. Anyone who commits murder is insane. They have to be. Outside of self-defense situations, a sane person can't be capable of murdering someone.

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

The justice deserved will never happen under Massachusetts law. You could put any jury you like, but its highly improbable you'll ever get a unanimous jury voter of guilty under their law. She'll either keep getting hung juries or a NGInsanity verdict in Mass. Probably why defense was so willing to admit she did it.

In Texas she'd have been guilty the first time around simply because of the difference in law. Defense would have fought harder and not admitted anything though.

---

Fdsa said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

The justice deserved will never happen under Massachusetts law. You could put any jury you like, but its highly improbable you'll ever get a unanimous jury voter of guilty under their law. She'll either keep getting hung juries or a NGInsanity verdict in Mass. Probably why defense was so willing to admit she did it.

In Texas she'd have been guilty the first time around simply because of the difference in law. Defense would have fought harder and not admitted anything though.

---

I thought the same…this wouldn't happen in Texas. I believe this case says different, and this was before crazy Karen's were so, crazy.

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

She is currently at the state hospital in Kerrville

---

Quote:

---

Clancey does not give off that vibe

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

The justice deserved will never happen under Massachusetts law. You could put any jury you like, but its highly improbable you'll ever get a unanimous jury voter of guilty under their law. She'll either keep getting hung juries or a NGInsanity verdict in Mass. Probably why defense was so willing to admit she did it.

In Texas she'd have been guilty the first time around simply because of the difference in law. Defense would have fought harder and not admitted anything though.

---

I thought the same…this wouldn't happen in Texas. I believe this case says different, and this was before crazy Karen's were so, crazy.

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

She is currently at the state hospital in Kerrville

---

Andrea was found guilty of capital murder initially, but was overturned on appeal.

My understanding is Yates could have left her facility many years ago but is guilt ridden over what she did and believes its where she belongs.

Clancey does not give off that vibe.

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

The justice deserved will never happen under Massachusetts law. You could put any jury you like, but its highly improbable you'll ever get a unanimous jury voter of guilty under their law. She'll either keep getting hung juries or a NGInsanity verdict in Mass. Probably why defense was so willing to admit she did it.

In Texas she'd have been guilty the first time around simply because of the difference in law. Defense would have fought harder and not admitted anything though.

---

So, all anyone like her has to do is move to that state and murder her kids and she's likely to walk?

I know it's not easy, but I'd imagine for women already living there that never thought of doing this, now just might thanks to this precedence.

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

I haven't really followed this thread, but I've kept reasonably up with what's going on.

Whats the deal with what I've seen in media headlines today? I've seen reports the foreman is speaking openly about the lone guy that led to the hung jury. I thought jurors were free to speak of their own experience only and other jurors were off limits.

I've never been on a jury so I honestly don't know that much about the process.

---

fc2112 said:

---

Are they free to identify other jurors?

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Thanks hawg! Appreciate the insight.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Are they free to identify other jurors?

---

Yes. Judge can ask them not to do that but judge also instructs them it is their choice whether they talk to the media or not post dismissal.

Were a judge to try to impose a gag order post dismissal (other than a national security case) it would be a prior restraint in violation of the first amendment.

That is not to say the jurors revealing that information cannot have other consequences however. If a doxed juror is harmed, there can be civil liability.

---

Omperlodge said:

---

Juries should find the person guilty or not guilty. The defendant should then be able to appeal the conviction based upon insanity. The judge should hear from both sides medical experts and then decided insanity based upon the law.

This gives the defendant the ability to maintain a non guilty plea through the trial. It also takes it out of the hands of a jury that doesn't understand the medical basis for an insanity plea.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Omperlodge said:

---

Juries should find the person guilty or not guilty. The defendant should then be able to appeal the conviction based upon insanity. The judge should hear from both sides medical experts and then decided insanity based upon the law.

This gives the defendant the ability to maintain a non guilty plea through the trial. It also takes it out of the hands of a jury that doesn't understand the medical basis for an insanity plea.

---

That takes away fact-finding from the jury, which is their job. In a very rudimentary case, juries decide facts, judges decide law. And whether someone is insane or not is heavily fact dependent.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

So obviously staged for clicks

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not necessarily. If your defense is dependent on the law, you want a judge.

But also, it's not called an adversarial system for nothing.

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

BREAKING: NBC reports female jurors resorted to ‘name-calling’ as the lone male juror continued to hold out against them in the Lindsay Clancy trial pic.twitter.com/3jiXXeZLvR

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 9, 2026

It was 8-4 at the beginning, so 8 out of the 9 women were in favor of NGRI initially; 3 were persuaded to change and 1 was the lone holdout.

I cant imagine the load of bull**** this guy had to endure for those two weeks.

---

I am sorry, I already have a wife, and she can get spicy everyonce in a while. I do not have the bandwidth to sit there and listen to godless liberal women with toxoplasmosis hurling insults at me because they're to stupifd and hyper-emotional to process a cut and dried triple-homicide case. Proud of this man.

---