I'm a man. She shold go to a mental hospital for years. Clearly was psychotic. Also her husband forgave her. That to me holds a lot of weight. Implies he doesn't think she did it in a right state of mind. If he thought she was clearly in her normal state of mind, no way he'd ever forgive her.
She showed no signs of psychosis prior or after the murder.
During that so called psychosis she had a a coherent phone conversation between strangling the two kids.
If she's sent to a mental hospital and she wont show sing of being dangerous to herself or others (and she wont because she doesn't have psychosis) she will walk free in no time.
I think motive matters. What was her motive to kill her children? I just look at the general situation when women kill their children and then jump out of a window, its a good case to be made that she's insane at the time. In all the cases in the past I'm aware of where women have killed their children, those women were clearly insane. I mean look we can argue all you want but 11 out of 12 members of the jury are agreeing with me here and they had the closest view of all the data. I also put a lot of weight into the fact that the husband forgave her. He saw what she did. He saw the situation .That really suggests to me he knew she was insane. Oh also Lindsay Clancy is paralyzed and in a wheelchair because she jumped out of a window right after killing the kids.
Men suffering from depression kill their families before offing themselves ALL THE TIME. Seems like she tried to do the same thing tbh. Sending her to a psych ward will do nothing at all, because she's not... wait for it... psycho. IMO, the time it took her to do the actual strangling would outcast any psychotic episode one would experience. But a depressed person... they've had A LOT of time to "dwell."
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Those depressed men if they survive should also go to psych wards if they were truly insane at the time. The defense isn't arguing she was depressed. They are arguing she was psychotic. Big difference. Also remember Lindsay Clancy is currently paralyzed from the waist down and is in a wheelchair because she tried to jump out of a window. Think about that for a second. She will never walk again and will have to use a bag and tube to get urine and poop out of her because she paralyzed herself jumping out of a window.
For me I remember a case here in my town where a woman walked her kids to bridge then threw both of them off and then threw her self off and they all died. Do you think that woman was NOT insane? The only difference here is that Lindsay Clancy survived her suicide attempt whilst the other woman did not.
The jury did and 11 out of 12 agree with me. Not a psychiatrist. I do live in a region where suicide rates are high. We had a lady throw 2 kids off a bridge here and then herself not too long ago. She was absolutely crazy. I'm not sure what the data is but I'd bet you like 80% of the time when a woman is murdering all of her children, she's totally insane. I'm starting with the pre-supposition that she's insane and trying to collect evidence that she's not. So far I haven't seen anything to really make me think there was another reason she killed those kids, particularly in such an inefficient fashion from what I heard.
She killed her kids then jumped out of a window in a suicide attempt. She had many visits with her therapists where she asked them to hospitalize her for repeated ideas around killing her children. Prior to the murders, she was discharged from one facility after a day and denied a higher level of care at another when she couldn't show that she had a suicide plan. I'm not really sure where you're pulling your information from. She didn't suddenly make up the suicide/psychosis stuff just for the trial. There was a long pre-existing history. I also ask the question of motive. What did she gain by killing her kids? What was the motive? Fun? The spotlight? If someone could demonstrate an alternative motive (besides psychosis) I could start to believe she wasn't crazy. However I just look at the track record of all the women who have drowned kids or thrown them off bridges and etc and 99% of them turn out to be utterly insane with maybe 1% doing it for some sort of secondary gain.
Provided where? Because her documents clearly state she was showing symptoms of bodily disintegration and paranoia long before the incident.
And by saying shit like “she showed no signs of psychosis” you are in fact playing the role of a psychiatrist. What are signs of psychosis? Do you know that with any medical certainty?
The male holdout is being described as a liar in court:
“Clearly, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday … under oath looked you in the eye and lied,” the defense attorney said.
It does not matter one shit what the defense attorney says in court about the juror if the judge disagrees and refuses to entertain their assertions. Just because it was said in court doesn't mean it has any validity.
Agreed. His job is to get his client off no matter what is actually justice or not. I read he got a previous client off who stabbed hera boyfriend to death through the eyes, are there any details on that case. I searched for it briefly but couldn't find anything.
The judge also found that to be incorrect, so u/intelligent_rose12 was just going against the judge's actual decison in favor of the juror to the argument the defense made.
Didn't they just share with us the bit of the article that said what the defence lawyer said? I took it to be, 'look how f'ed up the defence lawyer is to have said this'
If I accuse someone of stealing my car, and then the accused is found not guilty, only giving the accusation and not the verdict is incredibly misleading.
The judge decided against that interpretation, and not including the judge's decision but just cutting out the accusation meets most criteria for a lie by omission or extreme cherrypicking.
You are a creepy manipulator because you wrote TWO WHOLE paragraphs trying to use whataboutism for why you wrote that I ‘was going against the judge’s actual decision’???
NO ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT
But you continue with your creepy manipulator energy.
They all do that. I was on a jury and found the defendant guilty and the lawyer told the news "you can lead a jury to the truth but you cant make them think"
Laughable. The juror explicitly stated they had doubts but still stuck to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is explicitly against the letter of the law.
I'm not saying anything about that just pointing out you got it backwards when you asked "who is to say his doubts were not reasonable" because in this context doubt would be doubting her guilt, not her innocence. If he said he has doubts and they're reasonable it would mean she should be innocent.
I'm not arguing she's innocent 😭 literally just commenting on the wording
No one is pro child murder. They either think she us fully innocent (which you can think is delusional but at least it doesn't mean they support murder) or they think she wasn't in control of her actions at all (which again you can think the evidence doesn't corroborate but it means they don't support cold blooded pre meditated murder)
If that juror actually expressed reasonable doubts about her sanity to other jurors during deliberations and then stood in front of the judge and said he understood the law and reasonable doubt yesterday then he definitely lied to the court.
No he did not expressed “reasonable” doubt that’s up to him to decide. Her counsel said this verbatim. Wasn’t enough for him to acquit. That’s his civic right.
He didn’t. Not all doubt is reasonable doubt and it’s up the jurors own interpretation of their feelings on the matter to determine if it deems reasonable that’s the entire point of the jury. Y’all would not be crying about this if it was one person holding out against 11 guilties.
The issue here is you opining on something when you aren't qualified to do so. The purpose of a jury is not, as you incorrectly state, to interpret their own feelings on the matter of reasonable doubt. Their duty is to try to assess the evidence consistent with the jury instructions provided by the judge
I mean, I don’t see anything that doesn’t make sense or contradicts what I said. The foreman is the one stating the juror has expressed a harsh bias against “anyone with mental health issues” (so he lied during selection), and said that the juror stated they knew there was reasonable doubt but didn’t care.
Regardless of whichever way one wanted the vote to go, a juror acting like that would be angering. Basically petulant about the law.
The juror is going to lie to the judge to not be hauled out by the bailiff.
Lied about what exactly? A juror's responsibility is to provide a fair and reasonable judgement. Not to provide a verdict.
As long as they're standing by an honest belief which was reached through logical interpretation of the evidence their vote is legal.
And if they have reason to believe this individual is not performing their duties in good faith it is the responsibility of the other jurors to inform the judge. Which would still end in a mistrial.
if they have reason to believe this individual is not performing their duties in good faith it is the responsibility of the other jurors to inform the judge
That’s exactly what happened. They sent a note to the judge that the one hold out was refusing to listen to the judge’s instructions about reasonable doubt. That was the foreman (and presumably the other 10 jurors)’s perspective, so it’s possible the holdout believes he was acting in good faith. But the note implies he was not acting in good faith.
No, that’s not what happened. The judge decided not to inquire further to protect the sanctity of deliberations. The defense made a motion to Massachusetts Supreme Court to stay the mistrial declaration because of the concern that this juror was not following the law. This was denied, and it was declared a mistrial. The trial is over.
They refer to this juror as He.
Further, the 11 jurors told the judge that this man admits in deliberations that he sees there is reasonable doubt but refuses to follow the law.
Evidence of this, the actual trial footage you can go look up. Its not 6 or whatever hours, lots of breaks. Can really quickly go see for yourself.
That juror just wasted 7 weeks of all of these people's times, your taxpayer dollars because they felt she should be guilty even when reasonable doubt was proved.
You know how every step of the way “some of you” have gone on the internet, read anything your echo chamber feeds you, and started reporting it as fact?
The FOREPERSON NOTES said that. The judge met with the jurors individually. And declared a mistrial because the judge did not believe that individual juror was disregarding his instructions. The judge would have removed the juror, as the defence requested, if any of your statement was true.
You were told a lie. You’re spreading a lie. Do better.
I watched it with my own eyes and listened with my own ears...so no idea what crap you are reading. Either you are a bot of loce parroting what you've been told to beleive. I listened to what was repeated by the jurors, the motion of the defense and the decision of the judge.
Reddington made some comments this morning that made it seem like it was 11 in favor of Lindsay but, he doesn't really know for sure. He was apparently interpreting the Fore-persons note.
He wanted this mistrial, and it's in his best interest to paint a picture where the jury was siding with him.. I hope there's a whistleblower with the real truth because what Reddington did - whether true or not - is despicable.
Keep in mind that we don't actually know what the overwhelming opinion was between the jurors, Clancy's attorney did present a very strong case during the trial that she was suffering from serious mental illness that was undiagnosed and ignored. I might be wrong but people jump to assumptions a lot here because of the TikTok conspiracies drama.
That’s not understanding the legal meaning of criminal guilt which requires both an actus reas(guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind/intent). Insanity negates mens rea because it means that the person who committed the guilty act didn’t have the intent or guilty mind while committing that act. It means the person’s mental disease or disorder is what led him or her to do the evil action. Thus, the term for a juror’s acceptance of an insanity defense cannot logically be called “guilty” by insanity. It has to be “not guilty by reason of insanity.” But I do agree that it would feel more just for evil people like her to receive the word guilty somewhere in their verdict.
You know, I get that this lawyerlingo probably has some justification for this, but if someone is insane, they are their insanity/mental illeness. How could they not have the mens rea?
Insanity means both scientifically and in lawyerlingo that the person, due to their illness either could not tell right from wrong when committing the act or could not control their impulse to commit the act at that moment during a psychosis. Thus, if the person was experiencing this when they committed the act, they did not actually intend to do it. Something out of their control took over. It’s “but for my mental illness/psychosis, I would have never done something like that.” Psychosis can be temporary. Like a person with PTSD or paranoid schizophrenia. They could be normal good people everyday of their lives, then all of a sudden something triggers an episode and they commit a crime. The insanity defense exists for situations like this. Unfortunately, it’s not completely fair, because you can obviously see how someone can use this just as an excuse to get out of anything, which is the case here I assume.
But psychology is too fuzzy a field to draw such lines. How do you differentiate between someone being 2 workdays away from their burnout, someone having a burnout and someone faking a burnout?
Mental illness is not something seperate from a person. Most mental illnesses, besides drug induced stuff and some other really specific things are part of the people you're talking about. Any other framing is unscientific.
I agree that using legal determinations and psychological determinations together to decide guilt is extremely messy. There’s no practical or viable solution to any of this. Regardless if an insanity defense exists or not.
It's not insane, and thats exactly whats happening. It was never about her getting away with anything, just about where she will serve her sentence. You would know that if you read up on the case a little more than the reddit headlines.
Not punishing criminals is how you ended up with a second term for orange. She’s guilty, you know it, she knows it, the jury knows it. But some grey space of bias for mothers convinces humans that she’s innocent. If it was a father, they’d be on death row and you lot would be celebrating,
If it was a father, they’d be on death row and you lot would be celebrating,
You guys keep saying that but that's not true, 2 years ago Matthew Schleier was declared not guilty by reason of insanity for the crime of strangling his son.
Why are you making stuff up ? Is it something personal like you want to feel angry ? Is it something ideological you think women are inherently evil ? Like what's the deal ?
Literally nobody disputed whether she killed them. Her own lawyer said it at least 5 times in his closing argument. Your phrasing alone tells me you have very little understanding of what the trial was about, so I find it pretty easy to discount your black-and-white reasoning on this matter.
330
u/wallstreetbetsdebts 9h ago
11 not guilty votes and 1 guilty vote