Lindsay Clancy Case

15,842 Views | 268 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by EatMoreSalmon
trey3216
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 El Oso • 5:14p, 9/4/26
El Oso said:
Oldbear83 said:

She admitted knowing what she was doing.


This sentence in your response is not true, and it is critical to what happened in this case, and what will happen in the retrial. Her defense centers on whether she understood right from wrong or possessed the criminal responsibility required for a conviction due to her post partum psychosis. In other words, she knows she did it, but she didn't know it was wrong when she did it.
that was her defense….i.e. the lawyers' defense. That doesn't discount that she knew what she was doing.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
3
Danielsjackson114
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 trey3216 • 5:18p, 9/4/26
El Loco has said some stupid shyt on here, but this takes the cake

Liberals are pure fkn evil
Reply Quote
1
trey3216
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 Harrison Bergeron • 5:25p, 9/4/26
Harrison Bergeron said:
Shut The Front Door!

Men and women are different?

Not surprising women are expo e ty more like to fall for social contagion.


"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
George Orwell, 1984
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
7
drahthaar
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 trey3216 • 5:31p, 9/4/26
trey3216 said:
El Oso said:
Oldbear83 said:

She admitted knowing what she was doing.


This sentence in your response is not true, and it is critical to what happened in this case, and what will happen in the retrial. Her defense centers on whether she understood right from wrong or possessed the criminal responsibility required for a conviction due to her post partum psychosis. In other words, she knows she did it, but she didn't know it was wrong when she did it.

that was her defense….i.e. the lawyers' defense. That doesn't discount that she knew what she was doing. /

Then apply the law to the facts and convict her. "Did she kill her kids?" Yes or no?

The punishment phase can then apply the "facts" of her mental state to prescribed legal penalties. Her mental state has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, only giving clues to "Why?".
Reply Quote
El Oso
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 trey3216 • 5:32p, 9/4/26
That's a question of fact for the jury to decide. This one couldn't. The statement is factually incorrect until it is proven in a court of law.
Reply Quote
1 edit
El Oso
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 drahthaar • 5:35p, 9/4/26
That's not how the law works.

Yes. She killed her kids. Nobody is denying that. The issue here is was she insane at the time of the murder due to postpartum psychosis. If the answer is yes, then she is not guilty by reason of insanity. If the answer is no, then she's guilty.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
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 El Oso • 5:45p, 9/4/26
El Oso said:
Oldbear83 said:

She admitted knowing what she was doing.


This sentence in your response is not true, and it is critical to what happened in this case, and what will happen in the retrial. Her defense centers on whether she understood right from wrong or possessed the criminal responsibility required for a conviction due to her post partum psychosis. In other words, she knows she did it, but she didn't know it was wrong when she did it.


Bull*****
Reply Quote
3
Mitch Blood Green
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 historian • 6:41p, 9/4/26
historian said:
I doubt your Dad ever was serious or ever did anything to made you believe he was serious.

Also, it's not about mere words in this case. She really did strangle her children, including her newborn, and confessed to it. It should be an open shut case and should have been a guilty verdict in 1-2 hours.


My dad in a nutshell. At 10/11 he'd take me and 4 brothers fishing. He'd forget water and soda. He'd remember bourbon and old style.

Until he died, his sons had to have drinks with him. In 2016 when the Cubs won the World Series, we had a huge celebration dedicated to him and his dad! Great time.
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
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 El Oso • 7:20p, 9/4/26
El Oso said:
These two cases are apples and oranges once you clear they are both parents who killed their children.

John Battaglia's jury in Dallas answered whether he had done it. He had not seriously denied it, and he never pleaded insanity. He couldn't. His own psychiatrist had told the court in a pre-trial hearing he knew what he was doing, which is the sentence that ends an insanity claim before it starts. His bipolar disorder came up afterwards, in the punishment phase, as an argument against the death penalty.

Lindsay Clancy's jury is not being asked whether she did it. That is conceded. They are being asked whether she was criminally responsible, which is the plea Battaglia never made because he legally could not because he couldn't prove he was insane.

I think maybe it is more fair to say it's Granny Smith apples and Red Delicious apples.

Legally agreed; however, pretty nuts anyone could believe here insanity defense. It also really is an odd law as we know it is impossible to prove a negative. Literally anyone could claim to be possessed, commit crime, and then the state has to prove the suspect was not possessed? Seriously, in this case how would it even be possible for anyone to prove she did not hear a voice and then kill her kids (while ignoring hearing a voice does not make you need to obey the voice).

I think what people are reacting to is less the legal minutia and the odd social contagion that has created so many Child Killer Fan Girls. I think the way the defense tried to blame the medial community is likely what got them going.

While I was joking a few days ago, I am really starting to wonder is she set the entire thing up from the pill-popping, doctor-shopping, etc. We know she did not take most of those meds, and she is a nurse so medically sophisticated. I think it's not unreasonable that she was setting up and entire insanity defense / blame the medical industry ... and it worked.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Redbrickbear
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 Oldbear83 • 7:36p, 9/4/26
Oldbear83 said:
El Oso said:
These two cases are apples and oranges once you clear they are both parents who killed their children.

John Battaglia's jury in Dallas answered whether he had done it. He had not seriously denied it, and he never pleaded insanity. He couldn't. His own psychiatrist had told the court in a pre-trial hearing he knew what he was doing, which is the sentence that ends an insanity claim before it starts. His bipolar disorder came up afterwards, in the punishment phase, as an argument against the death penalty.

Lindsay Clancy's jury is not being asked whether she did it. That is conceded. They are being asked whether she was criminally responsible, which is the plea Battaglia never made because he legally could not because he couldn't prove he was insane.

I think this case really does show how morally depraved modern civilization has become.

Clancy admitted murdering her kids.

She admitted knowing what she was doing.

At that point the only sane frame is whether she gets life without parole or a death sentence.

The idea that she could ever go free should enrage any sane American.


[The Lindsay Clancy trial heads for a mistrial as the jury remained deadlocked.

But for Nellie Bowles of Free Press "The deeper idea being proposed here seems to be that moms should kind of be able to kill their kids. Like, if they're really, really stressed,"
she wrote. "In Canada, that's the law already. If a parent kills a kid under the age of 1, it's a maximum five-year sentence. We're now going to see a movement to bring that to the U.S., and also to expand it to older kids.

Death cults will death cult."]
Reply Quote
3
Fre3dombear
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 Redbrickbear • 7:44p, 9/4/26
Redbrickbear said:
Oldbear83 said:
El Oso said:
These two cases are apples and oranges once you clear they are both parents who killed their children.

John Battaglia's jury in Dallas answered whether he had done it. He had not seriously denied it, and he never pleaded insanity. He couldn't. His own psychiatrist had told the court in a pre-trial hearing he knew what he was doing, which is the sentence that ends an insanity claim before it starts. His bipolar disorder came up afterwards, in the punishment phase, as an argument against the death penalty.

Lindsay Clancy's jury is not being asked whether she did it. That is conceded. They are being asked whether she was criminally responsible, which is the plea Battaglia never made because he legally could not because he couldn't prove he was insane.

I think this case really does show how morally depraved modern civilization has become.

Clancy admitted murdering her kids.

She admitted knowing what she was doing.

At that point the only sane frame is whether she gets life without parole or a death sentence.

The idea that she could ever go free should enrage any sane American.


[The Lindsay Clancy trial heads for a mistrial as the jury remained deadlocked.

But for Nellie Bowles of Free Press "The deeper idea being proposed here seems to be that moms should kind of be able to kill their kids. Like, if they're really, really stressed,"
she wrote. "In Canada, that's the law already. If a parent kills a kid under the age of 1, it's a maximum five-year sentence. We're now going to see a movement to bring that to the U.S., and also to expand it to older kids.

Death cults will death cult."]


Will democrats or republicans advance this in USA politics?
Reply Quote
El Oso
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 Harrison Bergeron • 7:48p, 9/4/26
Harrison Bergeron said:


Legally agreed; however, pretty nuts anyone could believe here insanity defense. It also really is an odd law as we know it is impossible to prove a negative.


11 states require the prosecution to improve the defendent is not insane. Massachusetts insanity verdicts are inline with national insanity verdicts, so this seems to contradict your contention here. The prosecution proves no insanity all the time. They weren't able to do it this time.

I have no idea if she's nuts or not. I didn't hear the evidence. 11 that did thought she was nuts. One stuck to his guns. Good for him. They'll try again next month is my guess.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
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 Fre3dombear • 7:50p, 9/4/26
Fre3dombear said:
Redbrickbear said:
Oldbear83 said:
El Oso said:
These two cases are apples and oranges once you clear they are both parents who killed their children.

John Battaglia's jury in Dallas answered whether he had done it. He had not seriously denied it, and he never pleaded insanity. He couldn't. His own psychiatrist had told the court in a pre-trial hearing he knew what he was doing, which is the sentence that ends an insanity claim before it starts. His bipolar disorder came up afterwards, in the punishment phase, as an argument against the death penalty.

Lindsay Clancy's jury is not being asked whether she did it. That is conceded. They are being asked whether she was criminally responsible, which is the plea Battaglia never made because he legally could not because he couldn't prove he was insane.

I think this case really does show how morally depraved modern civilization has become.

Clancy admitted murdering her kids.

She admitted knowing what she was doing.

At that point the only sane frame is whether she gets life without parole or a death sentence.

The idea that she could ever go free should enrage any sane American.


[The Lindsay Clancy trial heads for a mistrial as the jury remained deadlocked.

But for Nellie Bowles of Free Press "The deeper idea being proposed here seems to be that moms should kind of be able to kill their kids. Like, if they're really, really stressed,"
she wrote. "In Canada, that's the law already. If a parent kills a kid under the age of 1, it's a maximum five-year sentence. We're now going to see a movement to bring that to the U.S., and also to expand it to older kids.

Death cults will death cult."]


Will democrats or republicans advance this in USA politics?


It's a horrible evil thing

So we can be sure it will be bipartisan

(Like endless war, endless migration, and endless money printing)
Reply Quote
trey3216
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 El Oso • 8:11p, 9/4/26
El Oso said:
That's a question of fact for the jury to decide. This one couldn't. The statement is factually incorrect until it is proven in a court of law.
you had a juror openly chided by the bench to consider what "reasonable doubt" meant. In the public. That judge should lose his seat too for trying to finish a case where a juror was not convinced of his "reasonable doubt".
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
trey3216
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 El Oso • 8:18p, 9/4/26
El Oso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:


Legally agreed; however, pretty nuts anyone could believe here insanity defense. It also really is an odd law as we know it is impossible to prove a negative.


11 states require the prosecution to improve the defendent is not insane. Massachusetts insanity verdicts are inline with national insanity verdicts, so this seems to contradict your contention here. The prosecution proves no insanity all the time. They weren't able to do it this time.

I have no idea if she's nuts or not. I didn't hear the evidence. 11 that did thought she was nuts. One stuck to his guns. Good for him. They'll try again next month is my guess.
she is nuts. She's nuts because she wanted to kill her children. That's pre-meditation.

Women would be dancing in the streets after they convicted her husband in 27 minutes. He should go to jail for life too in my opinion. It Mass will Mass. should've put them in the Chappaquidick. Precedent
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:22p, 9/4/26
Reply Quote
6
Forest Bueller III
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 EatMoreSalmon • 12:10a, 9/5/26
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?

How could you ever "prove" someone is not insane, when so many people who are insane seem totally normal.

It is the dumbest standard I have ever seen.

She seems very very calculated, I read her timeline, her journal, her actions, her ability to manipulate, her ability to reason, I think she is lying about the male voice. The 20 minutes it took her to choke everybody out she should have had a break in her psychosis since it comes and goes in a moment. She did a lot of planning and a lot of manipulation while she was not in psychosis.

My guess is she planned this for months, documented her issues, and completed her plan. Her wounds were superficial; she grabbed the windowsill with her bloody hands. She didn't plan on being paralyzed.

I think she is a nut, but more a nut who thought she was special and life wasn't going how she wanted.
Smart woman has a lot of folks fooled.
Reply Quote
5
Forest Bueller III
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:14a, 9/5/26
Another thing, this was the least professional foreman I have ever seen. We should have NEVER known the jury count before the jury is polled at the end. All the speculation by online sites, the fact the Reddington dude was calling him before the final poll. Totally unprofessional and just looking to replace a juror, to his favor.

An insane level of unprofessionalism.

Then the pink death cult group, Massachusetts is an insane state.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Forest Bueller III
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 Redbrickbear • 12:22a, 9/5/26
Redbrickbear said:
Killed his 4 kids (did have mental issues)

"The jury deliberated for 50 minutes and handed down a death sentence.

He died via the electrocution in 2007.

Men didn't line the streets in support.

They didn't do heart shaped hands.

They didn't donate $1 million."



At least he didn't torture then like Lindsay did.
Reply Quote
3
Forest Bueller III
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 El Oso • 12:26a, 9/5/26
El Oso said:
Holdout is a man.

Arguments in open court this morning provided a couple of hints about the jury of nine women and three men who are deliberating Clancy's fate. The lead defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, referred to the jury's foreperson as "she," and to the holdout juror as "he."

It is incredibly unprofessional that we had this information before the final disposition of the case.

The Red dude did things that should have had him in contempt.

The women prosecutors were too weak and not oratorical enough. They need a firebrand.
Reply Quote
2
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:03a, 9/5/26
Apparently, the lone holdout was a man, the only person out of 12 who had the courage to insist on following the evidence. She was obviously guilty and there is no legitimate reason for any other verdict.

What is truly scary about this case is that 12 jurors, 9 women & 2 men, have no problem with a mother murdering her own children in cold blood. When I think about it, I'm forced to realize it is not surprising at all. We live in a society that for 50+ years proclaimed that women had the "right" to kill their babies in the womb. The distinction between babies inside and outside the womb was always insignificant: it has always been about killing babies. In recent years, there has been some talk by radicals of post-birth "abortion" which is another way of saying infanticide. The reality is that all abortion is infanticide because they are still humans regardless of the stage of development or location.

Naturally this is in Massachusetts where a few weeks ago the governor signed into law a measure expanding the "right" to kill babies. The irony is that it's in Plymouth, where the Pilgrims from the Mayflower first settled, a group of people who would be appalled at how corrupt and pagan this country has become. It also reminds me of the Old Testament condemnations of those who sacrificed their babies to Moloch, Baal, or some other false god. It's scary how alike our modern culture is to ancient barbarous ones.
Reply Quote
7
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:58a, 9/5/26
Clancy is now inspiring copycat crazies:

Horrific: Woman "fixated on" the Lindsay Clancy trial allegedly murders her 2-year-old son

https://notthebee.com/article/horrific-woman-fixated-on-the-lindsay-clancy-trial-allegedly-murders-her-2-year-old-son
Reply Quote
2
Johnny Bear
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 historian • 10:43a, 9/5/26
historian said:
Clancy is now inspiring copycat crazies

Of course she is and she will continue to do so until if and when she is retried, convicted and (most importantly) properly punished. Given that the majority of parents out there have at one or more times felt like one or more of their kids were " driving them crazy" there is all kinds of risk of people (especially Godless people) being inspired by this to think murdering your children for anything besides legit self defense can be somehow justifiable.
Reply Quote
6
2 edits
Harrison Bergeron
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 El Oso • 11:12a, 9/5/26
El Oso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:


Legally agreed; however, pretty nuts anyone could believe here insanity defense. It also really is an odd law as we know it is impossible to prove a negative.


11 states require the prosecution to improve the defendent is not insane. Massachusetts insanity verdicts are inline with national insanity verdicts, so this seems to contradict your contention here. The prosecution proves no insanity all the time. They weren't able to do it this time.

I have no idea if she's nuts or not. I didn't hear the evidence. 11 that did thought she was nuts. One stuck to his guns. Good for him. They'll try again next month is my guess.

I think you sort of misunderstand the point. Your response is because there were 15 states where owning slaves was legal, slavery made sense. Do you believe that?

The point is that it is foolish that the state should have to prove someone is not nuts just because she claims to be nuts. That in itself is irrational. If there is is a case where the murderer clearly is not in psychosis it's the Clancy case.

Clancy clearly was not nuts. She very clearly planned in detail the execution of her three kids and performed it in one of the most brutal and inhumane ways possible. That fact that so many seemingly intelligent and educated people support her because their "tribe" does is frightening. When anyone wonders "how could a group of people follow X and all Y" this is why. There are people out there like Sonny's wife who think the husband actually did it - we really have a stupid country.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
El Oso
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 Harrison Bergeron • 11:29a, 9/5/26
I don't misunderstand.

The government says she was sane when she committed this crime. She says she has mental problems that keep her from being properly able to understand what she did was wrong.

The bedrock premise of our legal system is the government should have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the law, she must be of mental capacity to differentiate right from wrong and understand her actions. This jury couldn't agree on whether or not the government proved she was. The legal system worked perfectly.

The defense is under zero obligation to prove anything. That's been a huge part of voir dire presentations from both prosecutors and defense lawyers in every voir dire I've ever been a part of.
Reply Quote
El Oso
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 trey3216 • 11:33a, 9/5/26
That's not even close to what happened. I watched it live. The judge redefined reasonable doubt and sent them back. He didn't chime anyone. He spoke to all 11 of them at the exact same time and basically reread what he told them a few days prior.
Reply Quote
El Oso
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 Forest Bueller III • 11:39a, 9/5/26
I was a foreman. Jury instructions regarding notes to the judge really don't exist outside of, if you need anything or have a question, write it out on this paper (ours was a legal pad) and give it to the bailiff sitting outside your door.

My jury was never deadlocked, but it is very possible that after 30 hours, I might have told the judge we're deadlocked and been specific about the deadlocked numbers.

Im not sure we can fault the foreperson for being detailed in the note. The only reason it became public knowledge is because the judge read the note to lawyers in open court,which they are required to do. There just happened to be reporters in the courtroom. Turns out they have a right to be there too. And a right to tell us what they heard and saw.

Then the defense lawyer talked after the session ended. Without a gag order in place, he did nothing wrong either.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Harrison Bergeron
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 El Oso • 11:51a, 9/5/26
El Oso said:
I don't misunderstand.

The government says she was sane when she committed this crime. She says she has mental problems that keep her from being properly able to understand what she did was wrong.

The bedrock premise of our legal system is the government should have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the law, she must be of mental capacity to differentiate right from wrong and understand her actions. This jury couldn't agree on whether or not the government proved she was. The legal system worked perfectly.

The defense is under zero obligation to prove anything. That's been a huge part of voir dire presentations from both prosecutors and defense lawyers in every voir dire I've ever been a part of.

Again, you continue to misunderstand. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

I am not doubting the system worked perfectly. I agree. I worked perfectly as designed.

What my original point was - that your response was to support slavery - was that is is nuts to require the state to prove a person was not nuts when they committed a crime because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. There is really no way to prove she was not nuts, which sets a dangerous precedent as we have seen as one child already as died as a result of the fan girl support of a triple-child killer.

If she was to be excused for murder because she's nuts, she should have to prove she's nuts.
Reply Quote
5
Harrison Bergeron
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 El Oso • 11:53a, 9/5/26
El Oso said:
I was a foreman. Jury instructions regarding notes to the judge really don't exist outside of, if you need anything or have a question, write it out on this paper (ours was a legal pad) and give it to the bailiff sitting outside your door.

My jury was never deadlocked, but it is very possible that after 30 hours, I might have told the judge we're deadlocked and been specific about the deadlocked numbers.

Im not sure we can fault the foreperson for being detailed in the note. The only reason it became public knowledge is because the judge read the note to lawyers in open court,which they are required to do. There just happened to be reporters in the courtroom. Turns out they have a right to be there too. And a right to tell us what they heard and saw.

Then the defense lawyer talked after the session ended. Without a gag order in place, he did nothing wrong either.

Just as a side night, I do always appreciate how left-wingers will vacillate between morality in legalism as it fits their ends.

I would ask you if you define right and wrong clearly by legalism, but we know you won't answer because on the next issue someone will follow the letter of the law but you'll still make a value judgement on moral grounds. Way too predictable.
Reply Quote
4
Forest Bueller III
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 El Oso • 12:23p, 9/5/26
El Oso said:
I was a foreman. Jury instructions regarding notes to the judge really don't exist outside of, if you need anything or have a question, write it out on this paper (ours was a legal pad) and give it to the bailiff sitting outside your door.

My jury was never deadlocked, but it is very possible that after 30 hours, I might have told the judge we're deadlocked and been specific about the deadlocked numbers.

Im not sure we can fault the foreperson for being detailed in the note. The only reason it became public knowledge is because the judge read the note to lawyers in open court,which they are required to do. There just happened to be reporters in the courtroom. Turns out they have a right to be there too. And a right to tell us what they heard and saw.

Then the defense lawyer talked after the session ended. Without a gag order in place, he did nothing wrong either.

I completely disagree. With such specific information, singling out one juror, there should have been a sidebar, and the pertinent information if possibly becoming public should have been divulged in closed quarters. Also, a Foreman making a personal call that the one person wasn't using "reasonable doubt", that is a bull**** call and not hers to make. Her reasonable doubt is not his reasonable doubt. She is an activist and had a temper tantrum because it wasn't going her way, then there was an attempt at jury tampering.

Why a cold blooded, calculated murderer has become cause celeb I have no idea. If a man does this schizophrenic, psychotic, or stoned to oblivion, you aren't going to find an army of deluded men taking up for him. Hell, at least Susan Smith had been abused her entire life, she had a slight excuse. This lady even had a nanny.
Reply Quote
4
El Oso
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 Forest Bueller III • 12:38p, 9/5/26
There was a sidebar. It took 10 minutes. We all stared at the seal on the wall because those can't be recorded.

Then they questioned each juror 1x1, also off camera, if they could follow the law even if they disagreed with the law.

Then they turned the camera on and reread the definition of reasonable doubt.

Then there was a hearing about whether or not this one juror should be removed while the jury kept deliberating. The judge said the defense could not prove the juror was not following the law. The juror stayed.

I still don't see the harm in what happened. Now, if juries were told you can tell us your deadlocked, but not what the deadlock number is, there would be a problem. Jury instructions about notes really don't exist in my limited experience.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
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 El Oso • 12:48p, 9/5/26
El Oso: " Now, if juries were told you can tell us your deadlocked, but not what the deadlock number is, there would be a problem"

Nope. You have made an argument that essentially says that if the law is followed, the details don't matter.

No one has a right to know how specific jurors voted, and that extends to protecting the vote count.

The law requires a unanimous decision. It does not matter whether the count was 6-6 split, 11-1 to convict, 11-1 to acquit, or anything else.

By your own standards, you don't get to demand something beyond what the law allows.

Reply Quote
2
Forest Bueller III
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 El Oso • 12:49p, 9/5/26
El Oso said:
There was a sidebar. It took 10 minutes. We all stared at the seal on the wall because those can't be recorded.

Then they questioned each juror 1x1, also off camera, if they could follow the law even if they disagreed with the law.

Then they turned the camera on and reread the definition of reasonable doubt.

Then there was a hearing about whether or not this one juror should be removed while the jury kept deliberating. The judge said the defense could not prove the juror was not following the law. The juror stayed.

I still don't see the harm in what happened. Now, if juries were told you can tell us your deadlocked, but not what the deadlock number is, there would be a problem. Jury instructions about notes really don't exist in my limited experience.

I will simply disagree. The entire world knew exactly there was one holdout and knew the holdout was a man. Since they were not sequestered and went home every day, this easily could have led to speculation and put the lone man in real danger. Especially with the pink clad nuts surrounding the courthouse every day. We even had one of the nuts try to photograph them likely in an effort to doxx the jury members.

Very poorly handled proceedings. Should have been sequestered from the start. Too much of a chance of jurors being influenced by outside sources. Which I'm pretty sure happened.

The trial being handled like it was with Karmleo Anthony was the way to go here. Too much outside interest.
Reply Quote
3
El Oso
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 Harrison Bergeron • 12:50p, 9/5/26
I dont define right and wrong by legalism, but if you are going to put a person in jail, you better follow every letter in the law.

I think I would be right if I shot and killed the man who raped my daughter. I would expect you, as a father of a daughter (if you are one), to agree with me and think I was not guilty. I'd make sure as many of these dads as possible were on my jury. But the law says I'm wrong. It also says my jury strategy shouldn't work even if all 12 dads had a daughter. As a juror, you have to follow the law whether you agree with it or not. And so your only verdict can be I am guilty even though you agree I did nothing wrong.

It works in reverse too. If you are insane, you are not responsible. I think even if you are nuts, you know not to kill kids. But the law says I'm wrong about this. The law says a person has to be sane to be guilty. That's why it should be on the government to prove sanity. It's the determining factor in the decision.

Reply Quote
El Oso
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 Forest Bueller III • 12:53p, 9/5/26
During the trial, I'm not sure where i stand on sequestering this jury. I was a little surprised once deliberations started that did not change.
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.