fubar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

fubar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

El Oso said:

---

0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.

---

You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?

---

Nobody not on the jury should know this just now.

---

Does the judge know?

---

No. If the judge knew where the jury was leaning and sent them back with instructions to reach a verdict, he'd essentially be putting his thumb on the scale. Not the judge's job in a jury trial.

---

What would you be doing right now if it was your trial? Do you just wait? Negotiate?

El Oso said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

El Oso said:

---

0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.

---

You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?

---

Nine women three men. I lean option one. Two definitely has a lot of possibility to it.

1. 10-2 (2 say not guilty by reason of insanity. Both women.)
2. They're split at least two ways, and possibly all three, between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. (They have too many ways to find her guilty with a wide variety of punishments depending on which one they choose. They may all think she's guilty but disagree on how much. For instance, if you're first degree and I'm manslaughter, can we really compromise and call it second degree?)

---

Apparently two women wore pink during some or one deliberation day - wonder if it's the two.

Anyone thinking manslaughter is like Sonny's wife believing the husband did it.

Yesterday, according to a journalist covering the trial who saw the jury talking to the judge about their deadlock, said one female juror was wearing a pink blazer. Today, that same juror was wearing something that wasn't as pink as the blazer but was still pinkish. A second juror was wearing a blue dress with pink trim on the neck and shoulders.

The jurors have told the judge they are not watching news programs or on social media during their breaks, so it could just be a big coincidence that means nothing or these jurors are consciously, or subconsciously, tipping their vote.

With all the options before the jury, there will be a lot of trouble gaining consensus. 4 options is a tough deal for a case that could easily have a lot of emotion in the deliberations.

"How could anyone kill their own children" emotion

"How can we convict someone who is obviously not in their right mind." emotion

All that has to be put aside in the jury room, I know. But is it really ever?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

fubar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

fubar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

El Oso said:

---

0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.

---

You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?

---

Nobody not on the jury should know this just now.

---

Does the judge know?

---

No. If the judge knew where the jury was leaning and sent them back with instructions to reach a verdict, he'd essentially be putting his thumb on the scale. Not the judge's job in a jury trial.

---

What would you be doing right now if it was your trial? Do you just wait? Negotiate?

---

That's a really good question. If the other side wants to negotiate, you always listen.

But at this point I'd be surprised if the jury reaches a verdict. Given that, I'd wait. El Oso's comments about talking after sentencing ring true, and that can be exceptionally helpful, assuming a second trial.

I'd also double-check to make sure my malpractice insurance payments were up to date.

El Oso said:

---

Yesterday, according to a journalist covering the trial who saw the jury talking to the judge about their deadlock, said one female juror was wearing a pink blazer. Today, that same juror was wearing something that wasn't as pink as the blazer but was still pinkish. A second juror was wearing a blue dress with pink trim on the neck and shoulders.

The jurors have told the judge they are not watching news programs or on social media during their breaks, so it could just be a big coincidence that means nothing or these jurors are consciously, or subconsciously, tipping their vote.

---

True, but (was not sure if the 2 for acquittal was confirmed) seems like a coincidence ... also kind of tricky: "not watching" does not mean "not discussing" i.e. others could be watching for them.

My guess is if that is true they're intractable and the jury will hang.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

With all the options before the jury, there will be a lot of trouble gaining consensus. 4 options is a tough deal for a case that could easily have a lot of emotion in the deliberations.

"How could anyone kill their own children" emotion

"How can we convict someone who is obviously not in their right mind." emotion

All that has to be put aside in the jury room, I know. But is it really ever?

---

I definitely understand how people feel that way. However, the data shows most kids are harmed at the hands of their parents ... to my earlier point, women and data are water and oil.

If you just think about the big cases: Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, Darlie Routier. Honestly, outside of a few cases, one must be somewhat mentally ill to kill anyone much less their own child, but it's not uncommon.

I'm just totally making this up, but I could posit she was playing 4-D chess and thought if she did it in such a heinous way that she would not be tried much less convicted. If she had just drowned them no one would be talking about this case.

I have not been watching the trial, but is the theory still that she did not jump out of the window but was going to let herself down (the blood on the shingles) and just had "bad luck" to hit in just a way to paralyze herself ... odd she would choose that way to commit suicide ... almost points to she had really thought it through carefully. Hell, the way she was acting with her physicians and medications - as a nurse - it's not that crazy to think this was all a plan to:
1) get rid of the kids
2) get rid of hubby
3) get paid

Redbrickbear said:

---

I will no longer be debating Lindsay Clancy supporters. I will just be posting this video in reply to any of them. pic.twitter.com/TmtrRZqmRi

— Carl Benjamin 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 (@Sargon_of_Akkad) September 3, 2026

---

It's such a weird cultural thing to want to nationalize these local crime stories.

I get they're intellectual stimulating but I would never have an emotion about these unless there was some massive miscarriage of justice, i.e. Daniel Penny getting convicted.

At least the Babylon Bee has a healthy perspective:

Jury Still Trying To Decide If Strangling Your Kids Is Okay

https://babylonbee.com/news/jury-still-trying-to-decide-if-strangling-your-kids-is-okay

Lindsay Clancy Surges To Commanding Lead As 2028 Democrat Front-Runner

https://babylonbee.com/news/lindsay-clancy-surges-to-commanding-lead-as-2028-democrat-front-runner

Yes, and they get lots of attention. It doesn't many there are many of them.

Everyone filing into courtroom

Judge and attorneys having a sidebar going on 10+ minutes. Jury about to be brought in.

Send this evil woman away forever

A juror brought to the sidebar and sworn in. Gonna need a lawyer to explain this one. Clark was wheeled up to the bench too.

Jurors now being brought in 1x1. That's also new. I've only ever seen a jury enter as a group.

Judge defining reasonable doubt for jury

Being sent back to continue

Seems to me this means the holdup is on guilty v not guilty since the types of murders were not explained.

El Oso said:

---

Seems to me this means the holdup is on guilty v not guilty since the types of murders were not explained.

---

If the choice is possibly insane or absolutely not insane, then Kalshi is trending toward a hung jury.

Look like 11- 1 not guilty

Lindsay Clancy jury remains deadlocked on 6th day of deliberations as mistrial looms

https://share.google/wbLvjScBZp3HyByZs

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://share.google/wbLvjScBZp3HyByZs

---

Now the question is is the one juror a man who doesn't understand what it's like to be a woman or a woman who had PTSD and if I didn't kill my kids, she shouldn't have either?

I also agree with the judge. If this juror says they are willing to follow the law, it is not for anyone to tell them whether or not their lack of reasonable doubt is at all reasonable and remove them from the jury. Barring the rest of the jury saying this juror told us they don't care what the law is or they don't care what the definition of reasonable doubt it, you have to go with their decision.

El Oso said:

---

A juror brought to the sidebar and sworn in. Gonna need a lawyer to explain this one. Clark was wheeled up to the bench too.

---

You'll have to take the hearsay, but I heard an attorney explain earlier today: this is not told to the jury, but a jury can be remove for things such as:
1. Ignoring the request to abstain from media
2. Refusing to deliberate
3. And a grayer area (looks like here) intentionally ignoring judges orders / jury instructions
4. Prolly some other misconduct

Not sure it happens very often, but that's sort of how it was explained.

It's sounding like an effort was made to remove a juror. Compiling a variety of reports says that after the side bar, the jury was seated one at a time. Each person was sworn in and asked question(s) by the judge. Then the judge defined reasonable doubt and sent them back to deliberate. He sent them home at 3pm. Roughly 40 minutes after he sent them back to deliberate. My guess is two and three on your list are in play here.

And on another side note, this morning, a Massachusetts appeals court overturned a guilty verdict for another mom accused of killing her kids four months before Clancy killed hers. That case was tried in front of this same judge who refused to let her psychiatric records be heard in court. The high court said he should have allowed them, overturned the verdict, and sent it back for a new trial.

Judge William Sullivan is expected to question a juror Friday morning after Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, accused the juror of disregarding the law during deliberations.
The judge will conduct an inquiry at 9 a.m. Friday, Reddington told reporters Thursday evening.
When asked if one juror was holding up a verdict, Reddington replied, saying, "Basically, there is a person who has doubt, but will not listen to the judge's instruction."

Redbrickbear said:

---

All 3 are holding hands.

All three are gone.

This is the tragedy. https://t.co/xeR1XGP2ut

— paige s. (@PaigeSully88) September 2, 2026

---

Absolute tragedy.

It's not uncommon that our system will:

1. Charge the wrong person
2. Overcharge the right person


From what I can tell, Clancy has a really good attorney.

If the burden of proving sanity is on the prosecution when ever a defendant pleads insanity in the state of Massachusetts, then how could a good defense lawyer not use that plea?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

If the burden of proving sanity is on the prosecution when ever a defendant pleads insanity in the state of Massachusetts, then how could a good defense lawyer not use that plea?

---

That is a fascinating question ... must be some judge that must grant the defense strategy.

Redbrickbear said:

---

All 3 are holding hands.

All three are gone.

This is the tragedy. https://t.co/xeR1XGP2ut

— paige s. (@PaigeSully88) September 2, 2026

---

At the end of the day, should this not really be considered abortion? It's not an accident Massachusetts allows post-birth abortion. At the end of the day this really is not different. Abortion teaches a mom should have the life and death decision over her child for any reason, so is this outcome that surprising?