El Oso said:

---

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.

---

I thought the standard was not being able to determine right from wrong. Or having the ability to understand your actions are wrong.

If the standard is just insanity, just release 75% of prisoners right now. Most murderers are nuts. Many clinically insane.

Susan Smith and Jeffery Dahmer should never have been put in prison if insanity is the standard and literally all serial killers should never have been convicted those people are stoned out of their mind insane.

Harrison Bergon: " If she was to be excused for murder because she's nuts, she should have to prove she's nuts."

Disagree somewhat.

El Oso was correct in saying that the defense is not obligated to prove anything in a criminal trial. It may be helpful to their case to provide evidence that supports the argument they make at the start of the trial (assuming the defense makes an opening statement).

Of course, in practical terms the defense IS going to need to provide evidence that weakens or if possible disproves the prosecutors' case.

In this case, we are forced to consider a two-tier process. The first level is whether or not the accused committed the crime. In this case that is not in question, so there is a strong emotional impetus to demand punishment since the accused admits the act.

The second tier now comes in addressing intent or state of mind. There is - to me - overwhelming evidence that the accused deliberately murdered her children, which is so heinous a crime as to make acquittal an outrage. However, the question on which the jury focused was whether the accused understood the depravity of the act. That is where the defense laid its efforts and mostly succeeded.

The remaining question is what - if any - consequences the accused should face if the jury had found her not guilty by reason of insanity. The notion that the accused should have committed the crime but is later released to society without serious consequences is unconscionable. To my mind, the choices once the crime has been confirmed are two:

1. Life in prison
2. Life in a mental institution

Anything else is obscene on its face.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " If she was to be excused for murder because she's nuts, she should have to prove she's nuts."

Disagree somewhat.

El Oso was correct in saying that the defense is not obligated to prove anything in a criminal trial. It may be helpful to their case to provide evidence that supports the argument they make at the start of the trial (assuming the defense makes an opening statement).

Of course, in practical terms the defense IS going to need to provide evidence that weakens or if possible disproves the prosecutors' case.

In this case, we are forced to consider a two-tier process. The first level is whether or not the accused committed the crime. In this case that is not in question, so there is a strong emotional impetus to demand punishment since the accused admits the act.

The second tier now comes in addressing intent or state of mind. There is - to me - overwhelming evidence that the accused deliberately murdered her children, which is so heinous a crime as to make acquittal an outrage. However, the question on which the jury focused was whether the accused understood the depravity of the act. That is where the defense laid its efforts and mostly succeeded.

The remaining question is what - if any - consequences the accused should face if the jury had found her not guilty by reason of insanity. The notion that the accused should have committed the crime but is later released to society without serious consequences is unconscionable. To my mind, the choices once the crime has been confirmed are two:

1. Life in prison
2. Life in a mental institution

Anything else is obscene on its face.

---

In Massachusetts and 10 other states (ostensibly). In most states if the defense wants to deploy the instanity defense, it must prove the defendant is insane.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " If she was to be excused for murder because she's nuts, she should have to prove she's nuts."

Disagree somewhat.

El Oso was correct in saying that the defense is not obligated to prove anything in a criminal trial. It may be helpful to their case to provide evidence that supports the argument they make at the start of the trial (assuming the defense makes an opening statement).

Of course, in practical terms the defense IS going to need to provide evidence that weakens or if possible disproves the prosecutors' case.

In this case, we are forced to consider a two-tier process. The first level is whether or not the accused committed the crime. In this case that is not in question, so there is a strong emotional impetus to demand punishment since the accused admits the act.

The second tier now comes in addressing intent or state of mind. There is - to me - overwhelming evidence that the accused deliberately murdered her children, which is so heinous a crime as to make acquittal an outrage. However, the question on which the jury focused was whether the accused understood the depravity of the act. That is where the defense laid its efforts and mostly succeeded.

The remaining question is what - if any - consequences the accused should face if the jury had found her not guilty by reason of insanity. The notion that the accused should have committed the crime but is later released to society without serious consequences is unconscionable. To my mind, the choices once the crime has been confirmed are two:

1. Life in prison
2. Life in a mental institution

Anything else is obscene on its face.

---

In Massachusetts and 10 other states (ostensibly). In most states if the defense wants to deploy the instanity defense, it must prove the defendant is insane.

---

As it should be, when you murder 3 babies in cold blood, YOU should have to prove there were extenuating circumstances. Especially since she confessed.

I would have no problem with Life without the possibility of being removed from the Mental facility.

Beyond that the person is just getting away with a triple murder, in the cruelest way possible. The little girls eyes popped out of her head the force was so intense.

El Loco doesn't care. The girl had the sads so it was okay.

What is crazy is that he/she took the side of Karmelo Anthony has well. This dude is a complete lunatic. On par with FLunaticbear

Nguyen One Soon said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

I would have no problem with Life without the possibility of being removed from the Mental facility.

Beyond that the person is just getting away with a triple murder, in the cruelest way possible. The little girls eyes popped out of her head the force was so intense.

---

Doesn't work that way. Required to be insane at the time of the offense to get NGRI. However as soon as the person becomes sane, they have to be released. Can't keep a safe person indefinitely in a mental facility.

---

The experts had already released her once weeks before the murders.
Who gets to decide she is no longer a threat to herself or others? Legally it is not only a mental hospital staff, but the patient as well. That should be a hard no go in the case of murders being involved after a first visit.

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

he wasn't talking to them all, even if it showed as he was. And redefining reasonable doubt to attempt to get a decision is antithetical to our system of law.

trey3216 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

he wasn't talking to them all, even if it showed as he was. And redefining reasonable doubt to attempt to get a decision is antithetical to our system of law.

---

Remember you're talking to the same guy that claimed placing ******ed kids in normal public school classrooms enhanced the education of both ******ed and non-******ed students ... but when asked (affirming his own argument) if it makes sense to include ******ed kids in advanced placement classes ... well, he had no answer. He just bloviated but again demonstrated once again he cannot think independently.

I'm sure he's a nice guy - just wish we had smarter people teaching the future generations.

Nguyen One Soon said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

I would have no problem with Life without the possibility of being removed from the Mental facility.

Beyond that the person is just getting away with a triple murder, in the cruelest way possible. The little girls eyes popped out of her head the force was so intense.

---

Doesn't work that way. Required to be insane at the time of the offense to get NGRI. However as soon as the person becomes sane, they have to be released. Can't keep a safe person indefinitely in a mental facility.

---

They snapped once, who is to say they won't be like the mother from back in the 50's who murdered 3, was proclaimed sane, got out, had three more and murdered them.

Who is to say she will ever be safe. The VAST majority of people with her condition never hurt a soul. I believe it has a lot more to do with her, than the condition. If not everybody with her condition would murder.

I am genuinely fascinated by the Social Contagion that has some women and beta males making this triple child-killer a hero. it is the natural extension of the left's pro-abortion argument, but it is still weird how this has become tribal. I want to live in a world where we can all agree murdering your three children in cold blood is frowned upon and not celebrated.

Mainly only liberals

That's who they are

Patrick Clancy is suing those blaming him for his wife's evil deeds:

Billy Bush gets a letter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/billy-bush-gets-a-letter/

>>
A Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her two young children inside their home before fleeing to Vermont asked a judge to release her from custody and throw out the case.

Janette MacAusland, 49, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the April deaths of her 7-year-old son, Kai, and 6-year-old daughter, Ella.

MacAusland's attorney, Joseph Krowski, argued that prosecutors had not presented enough information to justify keeping his client behind bars.

The judge rejected the request and ordered MacAusland to remain in custody without bail, according to the New York Post.

This is the same woman police say showed up at her aunt's house in Bennington, Vermont, on April 24 with a bloody gash on her neck, hysterical, and allegedly confessed to killing her own kids.

According to a Vermont police report cited by CBS News, MacAusland told her aunt, "I wanted the three of us to go to God together but it didn't work."

She later told an officer, "I strangled them and then I tried to kill myself." She said the children were in her bed.
<<

The playbook is set

Annihilate you entire fam then say you had the sads

We just learned the lone holdout juror was a black man. Good for him. He is now even more of a hero. And somehow the defense attorney thought removing the lone black juror was a good idea. Perhaps the Clancy woman should find new Counsel.

El Oso said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

We just learned the lone holdout juror was a black man. Good for him. He is now even more of a hero. And somehow the defense attorney thought removing the lone black juror was a good idea. Perhaps the Clancy woman should find new Counsel.

---

And now we learn that court documents and interviews with family members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations againstthe holdout juror. We discovered a pending eviction case tied to months of not paying rent.

---

I think this is despicable. The American ideal of justice is a trial with a jury of your peers. The process is cumbersome and annoying, so most people try to get out of serving, but those who do serve deserve respect for their service and the right to privacy.

If I wanted to, I could point out many times in the past where I disagreed with a jury, especially when they pull stunts like jury nullification where they just ignore the evidence in favor of what they want (OJ Simpson, for example). But in the end a jury trial deserves to be respected, not overturned when a mob doesn't like the outcome.

This guy showed up for jury service, was qualified in voie dire, and seated on the jury. His opinion counts without qualifications. That the rest of the jury wanted to acquit does not require him to agree, just as 11 to 1 the other way would not require the holdout to give in to pressure.

And now people are looking for things to attack on this guy. This is clearly juror intimidation, a signal for anyone else brave enough to stand up to a mob.

This is something we should agree to stand against, on principle. Regardless of a decision by the jury being what we like or not.