Women have been killing their children for decades. It's no surprise many women support her in her actions.

But AboRtIoN is DifFErEnT

No.

Cromagnum said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL!

Lindsay Clancy Jury

Vote As Of NOW
11 Not Guilty
1 Guilty (Male Juror)

Yes, 1 Male Juror is the holdout pic.twitter.com/zcFGWZyaON

— Nate The Lawyer (@NatetheLawyer) September 4, 2026

---

And how is this information known to anyone?

From watching the trial on t.v.

Logos Stick said:

---

And how is this information known to anyone?

---

Its not

Hardcore Greg said:

---

TrumpsBarber said:

---

If I am understanding the judge and attorneys correctly, the 11 jurors are complaining that the male juror hold out was not following the judges instructions because he disagrees with them. Reminds me of my last workplace prior to retirement and also the Henry Fonda movie. Finally, I had to choose between my job and my dignity and I made the right choice. I hope the same for that man.

---

Shame on the other men for not digging their heels in for murder charges. Spineless liberal cowards.

---

It IS Massatwo****s.

Cromagnum said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL!

Lindsay Clancy Jury

Vote As Of NOW
11 Not Guilty
1 Guilty (Male Juror)

Yes, 1 Male Juror is the holdout pic.twitter.com/zcFGWZyaON

— Nate The Lawyer (@NatetheLawyer) September 4, 2026

---

"I'm familiar with the law. I know it's awkward. We try to protect and preserve, if you will, the sanctity of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations, we want to keep that private ..."

Well then why did he just read a statement about internal jury deliberations in open court? I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me like if this thing ends up with a decision, he left the door wide open for an appeal.

Judge just declared a mistrial.

I was just fixing to ask if this could lead to a mistrial...guess I know now

Good, let the initial insanity around the trial die down. Let people forget and move on and find her guilty next time around.

If what has been said is true, the lone male holdout will have to go into hiding.

The females on the jury will out him.

Wildmen03 said:

---

Good, let the initial insanity around the trial die down. Let people forget and move on and find her guilty next time around.

---

The insanity just went up a notch.

A big part of this is the bizarre Massachusetts law on the insanity defense that puts the burden on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is not what they claim to be.

The weird part is there was NEVER a clinician of. Any kind that diagnosed her symptoms as post partum anything. Nor was she diagnosed as schizophrenic. She claimed she heard a voice instructing her to kill exactly one time to one clinician in advance of the incident, as I understand it. She was not open or straightforward with her clinical evaluators. She kept rapidly changing experts and treatment regimen, and strangely as a nurse herself, she did not appears to take any medication she was prescribed consistently to be able to properly evaluate its effects. She did an awful lot of planning before making her killings. Even with the law very much in favor of the defense being used in that state, I can see where one or more jurors would not see any reasonable doubt and believe the burden of proof was met.

I agree this trial has revealed alarming information regarding the sicial state of portions of our population, their beliefs and the basis for them, and the increasing unreliability of jury trials in regards to bias prevention.

BayAg_14 said:

---

Judge just declared a mistrial.

---

Defense asking for a stay, has an hour to file if I heard correctly.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

A big part of this is the bizarre Massachusetts law on the insanity defense that puts the burden on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is not what they claim to be.

The weird part is there was NEVER a clinician of. Any kind that diagnosed her symptoms as post partum anything. Nor was she diagnosed as schizophrenic. She claimed she heard a voice instructing her to kill exactly one time to one clinician in advance of the incident, as I understand it. She was not open or straightforward with her clinical evaluators. She kept rapidly changing experts and treatment regimen, and strangely as a nurse herself, she did not appears to take any medication she was prescribed consistently to be able to properly evaluate its effects. She did an awful lot of planning before making her killings. Even with the law very much in favor of the defense being used in that state, I can see where one or more jurors would not see any reasonable doubt and believe the burden of proof was met.

I agree this trial has revealed alarming information regarding the sicial state of portions of our population, their beliefs and the basis for them, and the increasing unreliability of jury trials in regards to bias prevention.

---

I'm going out on a limb here and guess that you aren't wearing a pink t-shirt.

What a s***show! Getting comical now.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

A big part of this is the bizarre Massachusetts law on the insanity defense that puts the burden on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is not what they claim to be.

The weird part is there was NEVER a clinician of. Any kind that diagnosed her symptoms as post partum anything. Nor was she diagnosed as schizophrenic. She claimed she heard a voice instructing her to kill exactly one time to one clinician in advance of the incident, as I understand it. She was not open or straightforward with her clinical evaluators. She kept rapidly changing experts and treatment regimen, and strangely as a nurse herself, she did not appears to take any medication she was prescribed consistently to be able to properly evaluate its effects. She did an awful lot of planning before making her killings. Even with the law very much in favor of the defense being used in that state, I can see where one or more jurors would not see any reasonable doubt and believe the burden of proof was met.

I agree this trial has revealed alarming information regarding the sicial state of portions of our population, their beliefs and the basis for them, and the increasing unreliability of jury trials in regards to bias prevention.

---

Demonic possession. And this entire fracas shows how easy evil can persuade seemingly normal people. Guard yourself at all times and cling to Jesus Christ.

aggiehawg said:

---

What a s***show! Getting comical now.

---

Nothing can ever top the OJ case though.

Nothing will ever beat the Dancing Itos.

Sounds like they will get a poll as to what was agreed on by jury therefore will not get dbl jeopardy on certain counts.

Logos Stick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

What a s***show! Getting comical now.

---

Nothing can ever top the OJ case though.

---

Followed the OJ case very closely. Clark and Darden screwed up but Judge Ito really effed that case all to hell.

Rubicante said:

---

Nothing will ever beat the Dancing Itos.

---

first time I've used this phrase

that was cringe

it was indicative of the whole trial

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.

Fox 'experts' keep saying that if a mistrial is granted, the State has to decide whether to refile charges, reindict. Unless MA has some MORE insane rules, that's nonsense. There's no verdict. The charges are still there. It's as if the trial never happened.

That one male juror needs to move to TN, TX, or FL immediately. What a patriot though. That witch needs to be held accountable for murdering her children

So if I am collecting info correctly, it appears that:

The jury was 11-1 in favor of NGRI?

That was my read on the situation as of yesterday…just curious if that has actually been confirmed…

I thought the judge typically issues a gag order to the jury when a mistrial occurs to not corrupt a future trial.

We will know all his social media Trump posts as well. The judge should have requested these guys.

Martin Cash said:

---

Fox 'experts' keep saying that if a mistrial is granted, the State has to decide whether to refile charges, reindict. Unless Utah has some MORE insane rules, that's nonsense. There's no verdict. The charges are still there. It's as if the trial never happened.

---

Same thing happened in the Karen Read trial. So, yes MA law is really screwy. Defense counsel was correct in that MA law, jury can be polled as to whether they did reach unanimous verdict as to some charges and double jeopardy attached as to those charges. Or was the holdout on every charge?

Thunderstruck xx said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL!

Lindsay Clancy Jury

Vote As Of NOW
11 Not Guilty
1 Guilty (Male Juror)

Yes, 1 Male Juror is the holdout pic.twitter.com/zcFGWZyaON

— Nate The Lawyer (@NatetheLawyer) September 4, 2026

---

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

Omperlodge said:

---

I thought the judge typically issues a gag order to the jury when a mistrial occurs to not corrupt a future trial.

---

This is a blue state sir, any and all information that can be shared about a politically incorrect decision will be made public

Dexter.

Let's compromise. Find the largest staircase in Massachusetts and push her wheelchair down it.

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.

Ginormus Ag said:

---

Let's compromise. Find the largest staircase in Massachusetts and push her wheelchair down it.

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Thunderstruck xx said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL!

Lindsay Clancy Jury

Vote As Of NOW
11 Not Guilty
1 Guilty (Male Juror)

Yes, 1 Male Juror is the holdout pic.twitter.com/zcFGWZyaON

— Nate The Lawyer (@NatetheLawyer) September 4, 2026

---

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?

She was not schrizophenic, had never heard voices before, but just happened to hear them the one time she murdered her kids?
she has never heard the voices since.

Was she hearing the voices for the full 10 minutes she was strangling them?
Was she hearing them when she chased after the one kid, and got him back and strangled him with a exercise band?
Was she hearing them when she was doing google searches on how to kill in the previous days?
Did she go to a doctor for that (no, she did not)
did she take any of the medications she was prescribed (no, she did not)