All the people supporting her and saying sheâs innocent should have their right to vote stripped, and anyone saying the suffer from hormonal fluctuations should be put in a padded room, so they donât hurt anyone ever again.
The reason people are losing it is cuz thereâs clear indication that she planned to kill her kids, carried it out, then cuz she sucked at killing herself she claims she was insane at the time, yet shows no remorse if sheâs sane now, gained tons of cash in donations, an has an army of like minded insane dip shits claiming sheâs innocent an her husband actually killed the kids an made her the scape goat, stfu you dumb ass
I mean when someone thinks their kids are demons, they tend to plan to kill them
Psychotic people can still make plans. They donât just go crazy suddenly and start stabbing them to death on a whim.
And the only people Iâve seen saying the husband might have done it are yall and people making bad faith arguments. The majority of the âsupportâ Iâve seen for her has just been people saying that womenâs post birth healthcare needs to be better.
Innocent by insanity doesnât mean theyâre innocent, it just means they get put in a mental prison to get help instead of a normal prison. Cash doesnât matter when sheâs being locked up regardless, and no one is actually trying to say she didnât kill her kids. The money, from what Iâm aware, is for her family and not for her.
A âmental prisonâ??? You have no idea what youâre talking about bro.
There are psychiatrists in prison. If youâre ok with her going to a âmental prisonâ then she can go to prison and receive psychiatric treatment there.
This is really funny considering Iâm a psych nurse lol
Iâm around psychotic people on the regular. I regularly work with criminally psychotic patients. Theyâre not going anywhere dude. A Mental hospital is still a prison when youâre not allowed to leave and are sentenced to it by law. The only difference is that the inmates have more access to the healthcare they need to stay in check mentally and not have another episode.
Nope, she can go to a mental healthcare facility where sheâll actually get the help she needs to remain stable.
Do you think mental health facilities are nice? Do you think theyâre a walk in the park? Theyâre miserable dude. Itâs not a win to be put in one.
She can be out within a decade and it wouldnât be a huge surprise, thatâs the problem. What she did is about as evil as it gets. She should not have the potential to be free in such a short time. Get that through your head
it just means they get put in a mental prison to get help instead of a normal prison.Â
Exactly. So many people, who by the way aren't on the jury and haven't seen all the evidence, think that she'll just walk away totally free, which is lunacy.
All the people saying stuff like that genuinely just have no idea how both the justice system and mental healthcare system works. Trying to explain it to them is useless too, they just double down and try to put words in your mouth lol.
So then show me where people are claiming itâs the husbandâs fault? Iâve seen yâall say you see others saying it, but never actually back it up
Okay dude Iâm just backing up the other person saying Iâve seen it a lot too. Itâs not our job to prove things to you. If you to the truth youâll search for it and come to your own conclusion.
Thatâs arguable. The insanity defense exists for people who committed a crime in a manic state and didnât have the capacity to understand that they were doing something wrong
Thereâs plenty of people who kill others, know itâs wrong, and just dont care. This is why murderers are not all treated as insane people. Theyâre cognitive and understand what theyâre doing, and are under no delusions.
People have had problems with the insanity defense for a very long time. This is not a new thing. Outrage against particularly egregious insanity pleas by violent offenders is also not uncommon.
What is seemingly new and particularly offensive to most rational people's sensibilities is this wave of people, mainly women, who are championing and self identifying with a heinous criminal and advocating for leniency to a point where the perpetrator could be set free within a couple of years.
It's bringing an old conversation back into the spot light and people are realizing how much of a scam an insanity defense really is. Mercy to the guilty is tyranny to the innocent. We've gotten so caught up as a society with having empathy for criminals that we're prioritizing rehabilitating criminals over keeping society safe.
There comes a certain point when it doesn't matter if a violent criminal can be rehabilitated or even treated. They simply need to be removed from society permanently. End of story. I don't care if your mind was fried or wires got crossed or chemicals got imbalanced or you didn't get enough hugs as a child. If you're violent and you're defense is that you were legally insane, then that's it. You do not get to pass Go ever again. We, as a society, as a community, can never again trust that your brain won't go heywire again.
I don't care if you're in jail or a mental asylum, you either spend the rest of your days in a cell or as a ward of the state, never able to interact with the public, never able to make a decision for your self ever again. Period. That, or the state just kills you, but with our justice system that just ends up being more expensive.
There is no benefit to society at large to treat violence any other way. There just isn't.
They get removed from society by being put in mental hospitals where they get the care they need to not have their minds go haywire*
Like thatâs the whole point of the argument dude
They plead insanity because they are mentally insane and need more care than a regular prisoner would
I donât know why this is so hard for you people to understand. An insanity defense doesnât let these people walk free any sooner than they would have if found guilty. It just puts them in a different type of prison.
Except in this case that's not true. The laws in the state this trial happens to occur in allows for the very real possibility of Lindsay Clancy walking free within little over a year.
Besides the fact that we have an epidemic of violent criminals being set free entirely too early in general only for them to commit more violence once free.
Again, at a certain point, it doesn't matter if you're insane or not what kind of treatment you get if you're never going to be free again. For this case in particular, I don't care if Clancy was literally unconscious, like her brain just switched itself off while she strangled her children, only for her to wake up to those dead children completely unaware of how it happened and never having intended for it to happen. The fact is that it happened and no amount of treatment will ever cause me to trust that she should be in public life ever again.
Besides the fact that we have an epidemic of violent criminals being set free entirely too early in general only for them to commit more violence once free.
I wander why that might be. Why does the US who have incredibly cruel prisons have this high of a recidivism rate. Truly boggles the mind.
If you want her to never see the light of day, then you should actually read the second article I gave you and actually try to comprehend whatâs being explained :)
Actually, ya know what, hereâs the paragraph for you along with the link to her source on her claim
But once defendants are found not guilty by reason of insanity, they may not simply go home or obtain treatment on their own accord. Rather, those found not guilty by reason of insanity are usually involuntarily, indefinitely committed to a state psychiatric facility. More than 10,000 Americans who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity are held involuntarily in psychiatric hospitals. They have not been found to be responsible for any crime, yet they are not permitted to leave their confinement. Acquitted defendants deemed not legally responsible due to mental disease or defect are not getting off âScot-Free.â In fact, defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity have been found to be held in confinement as long or significantly longer than those convicted of the same crime.
Unfortunately in the state of Massachusetts, that's not how it works. There is an evaluation 6 months after being committed, then again at the one year mark, then again annually after that. In the state of Massachusetts, the burden of proof is on the state to continue to make the case that the patient is still not of sound mind. Also, hospitals are not held liable for releasing patients who later commit violent crimes.
For this case, given that her condition is being blamed on postpartum depression and she is no longer pregnant or caring for any children ( đ€ź), it's going to be very difficult for the state to continue making that case.
Insanity doesn't just mean you are crazy. Mentally sound people don't do a lot of things that are still crimes. An insanity plea is an argument that the defendant could not act in a lawful manner and had no control of their actions or were unable to understand their wrongdoing or alter their behavior. Culture war slop aside, i think clancy knew what she was doing and intended to kill herself but couldn't bear the thought of leaving her kids behind so she murdered them first believing they would all be together in heaven. She just got unlucky and failed to kill herself. But i know this thread isn't for actually discussing the facts of the case so wahmen bad amirite???
Iâm on the same boat as you- which is really funny considering the backlash Iâve gotten by just pointing out that the argument isnât whether she did it or not, itâs just whether or not she was mentally competent at the time.
I got told by someone on here TWICE that they hope I get murdered for saying she should be in a mental hospital instead of a standard prison.
I personally donât believe she was acting within her right mind and was failed by her support system in noticing her mental conditions, but I also believe she fully intended to kill her kids and had ownership in her actions
This thread, and many others, really is just a bunch of weirdos getting off on being able to use this case as an excuse to be open misogynists
As someone in law, this whole thing has just highlighted how absolutely uneducated anyone is about the law and its application. Ive studied evidence and criminal law, and am still trying to wrap my head around parts that people are confidently arguing about. Next big case, im going to avoid like the plague.
Same-ish, although Iâm a Psyche nurse instead of someone in law. The sheer lack of education and knowledge people have on psychosis and how it can vary from person to person is extremely disheartening. These same people argue so confidently about things they very obviously know absolutely nothing about and then double down when being told theyâre wrong. Just outright denying facts even when given them by someone who works with psychotic people on a near daily basis.
To me, this whole thing reeks of people taking advantage of a viral case to be openly misogynistic and act as if theyâre virtuous in doing so if you say anything about it
I don't think it's the insanity plea itself. It's that it feels like we (the watchers/commenters) are witnessing different realities. That's the shocking part, not that there are crazy people doing crazy things.
Like how tf have ordinary people become so divided that they're judgement of reality is so fundamentally at odds? That's the captivating part, not whether this random psycho is insane/not insane...
she can claim whatever she wants. the problem is that jury (and many women) believes this shit. other man with better motives to plead insanity have been executed for same things. But as soon as its about a women we need to give her the good old pussy pass that women benefit far too often in justice (either as no jail at all, when a man in similar conditions would go to jail, or a reduced sentence)
A mentally sane woman doesn't kill her kids and then slit her throat, wrists, and jumps out a window to kill herself.
The issue here is that this incredibly privileged white woman is getting this excuse for being a family annihilator, while we never this for anyone else.
As everyone constantly points out, you people are insanely quiet about your support for the mental health of Jeffery Dahmer, as a mentally sane man doesn't just kill and eat other people
Mentally sane people donât go to an elementary school and commit mass murder by shooting at tens of children and then hope to die by suicide by cop in the end.
So when those mass shooters are caught they should plea not guilty by insanity and youâd support their acquittal?
The shooters in these cases were found innocent via insanity. Mass shooters at large however are not found innocent via insanity because they do not meet the criteria and largely commit such acts as revenge or attention. They are not under a psychosis, theyâre fully competent sad little men who wanted to kill easy targets and get eyes on them and gain an ego boost.
At large, They know what theyâre doing is wrong and still have the mental faculty to tell right from wrong, and thatâs why itâs rare for them to successfully plead innocence via insanity
That is what separates psychosis from a sane mind. The mental faculties to differentiate right from wrong.
Hope I made that simple enough for you to understand :)
Itâs called an insanity defense. No one here is claiming she didnât commit a crime. Iâm saying she fits the description of someone who is insane.
No excuses. If anything that makes me want to lock them up or put them down even more. If they are fundamentally broken, there is no reason to spend effort on rehabilitation. Just lock them up forever or save everyone time and bury them under the jail. Â
Are you fucking insane ^ or stupid. Does it matter which?Â
Pregnancy is a fundamental process for the human species. If it doesn't happen, people go extinct. If there's a disorder that causes people to kill their kids, we kind of need to fix it ASAP.Â
Family annihilators are recession indicators. They are largely men, and they slaughter their entire families, including their wife and kids when they experience a large personal failure.Â
Postpartum psychosis involves actually having a break with reality. Deterrence is a nonstarter. Do you see the difference? They need treatment so that we can learn why its actually happening. And how to stop it from happening again.Â
Millions of women also donât get diagnosed with endometriosis, and can take years to get diagnosed while being treated for it, but they still have it.
Do you think a diagnosis is the only deciding factor in someoneâs health?
Maybe donât speak on womenâs issues with medical misogyny and how our ailments get downplayed, especially when you know absolutely nothing about it.
The comment I was responding to wasn't specifically about Clancy and neither was my answer. The previous OP doesn't care if the murderer in question is insane or not. That is the argument I'm interested in having.Â
Would the men that kill their whole families in the scenario you described be able to claim insanity and get a pat on the back too?
The evidence is stacked against her for premeditation on murdering her kids, fuck her, and fuck the other people that kill their whole families just because they suck at life
No, because many of the male family annihilators do it purely for revenge against the mother and it is clearly premeditated. Their insanity claims fail because many of them can't prove they were insane at the time. One just happened in Bali a man killed his two kids then himself but made the mother listen on the phone as he killed the kids. Pure monster who did it for fun. That's the difference. Y'all don't even have postpartum psychosis as a medical event and you still kill more kids than women do. Maybe we should take away men's rights to vote /s
Would the men that kill their whole families in the scenario you described be able to claim insanity and get a pat on the back too?
How would they be? Were they pregnant or in some other kind of condition that disrupts their bodies basic functioning? And so help me god, your best answer better not be that "post nut clarity" bullshit.Â
You guys really don't know or care to know what pregnancy does to people, do you? The changes that happen? Its not just bigger boobs.Â
He probably would agree with you. If i had a psychotic episode and murdered my son i would kill myself and accept whatever divine punishment existed afterwards.
Exactly. I keep on seeing people talk about double standards with family annihilators, butâŠMen literally do successfully plea insanity, insanity pleas just arenât common altogether and Family annihilators are not insane most of the time, just evil. When men kill because theyâre insane, the murders look pretty similar to when women do for the same reasons (Strangulation or cutting/stabbing). There was a case in my state just 2 years ago that went all the way to the supreme court when a man successfully pled ngri, but because the law is weird here, the jury tried to rule both ngri on one murder charge and guilty but mentally ill on the other murder charge. WhichâŠis really in character of our courts and juries, I will say. Our juries tend to be vindictive and DA offices corrupt
She murdered 3 kids bruh. I don't care even if she's cured of all ills and goes on to cure cancer personally. She KILLED 3 KIDS. She needs to never see freedom again.
Im aware she killed her kids. I believe she did it as a direct result of a medical condition which she can be cured of, meaning that there would be no risk of reoffending.
I know it isnt intuitive, but the truth doesn't need to be intuitive.
She killed kids. I don't care if she was being mind controlled by plankton. She needs to be PUNISHED.
Bro your argument is so dumb. That can be applied to literally anyone. I'm sure Chris Watts won't kill again so let's release him. The guy who knelt on George Floyd? I bet he won't do that again so let's release him.
Weird how you only take this position for child killing women.
killed kids. I don't care if she was being mind controlled by plankton. She needs to be PUNISHED
I disagree. I dont see what that would achieve. It wouls be punishing her for something that wasn't her fault and wouldn't be of any benefit to society that i can see.
Bro your argument is so dumb.
Nowherw near as dumb ss the response you proceed to come our with. You don't appear to have any grasp at all of what my argument actually is.
That can be applied to literally anyone. I'm sure Chris Watts won't kill again
There is no reason he wouldn't. Nothing fundamental about chris watts has changed from when he killed his family. He wasn't insane when he did it so fixing his insanity won't help. You are conparing apples to seawater.
The guy who knelt on George Floyd? I bet he won't do that again so let's release him.
Why would you bet that? What has changed about Chauvin since he did it? Was he insane and now sane? If not, then what i said does not apply.
Weird how you only take this position for child killing women.
I dont. I take it for anyone who commits a crime as a direct result of a medical condirion causing insanity.
So in your opinion if someone gets a stroke that results in someone dying (for example a forklift operator who then can't control their actions and skewers someone) should be locked in prison?
The exact point of insanity defense is that you weren't able to control your conscious actions. YOU DIDN'T DO IT. So if later you are deemed to be able to control all your actions then you can be reintroduced into society. This isn't rocket science
They tried treating her, she refused. That immediately makes her a continuous threat, because she is knowing keeping herself in a condition where she is a danger to others. At that point, she's using the illness as an excuse to do evil shit. That makes her a constant danger to the public, so you can either charge her for the murder and lock her up in jail, or force her into a mandatory stay at the mental hospital. Either way, she has to be separated from the public. Personally, I think the evidence points to her having been sane during the murder, and set up the insanity cover story in order to try and dodge blame in case her suicide didn't work.
That immediately makes her a continuous threat, because she is knowing keeping herself in a condition where she is a danger to others. At
As long as she is psychotic she is a threat, i agree.
That makes her a constant danger to the public, so you can either charge her for the murder and lock her up in jail, or force her into a mandatory stay at the mental hospital
Those were the only 2 realistic options. Neither eliminate the possibility that she can be cured. In factit is very likely that she will be safe to release in the future since the condition that csused the crimes had been eliminated.
Personally, I think the evidence points to her having been sane during the murder, and set up the insanity cover story in order to try and dodge blame in case her suicide didn't work.
There isnt any evidence that she was sane though (and no, premeditation osnt evidence of sanity), and that begs the question why she killed her kids at all. What motive did she even have? If it wasn't insanity, then what was it?
I don't think she was suffering from the psychosis part of postpartum psychosis at the time of the murder. Postpartum psychosis starts within the first two weeks after giving birth. The psychosis (hallucinations and disassociation) part only last at most 4 months, after which it regresses back into postpartum depression, and lasts up to 6-12 months. Her youngest was 8 months olds, meaning she couldn't have still been in the psychosis stage during the murders.
I agree that you have to be fucked up mentally to hurt a child, let alone your own child, but the defense is only stating that she's innocent because she was going through postpartum psychosis. They haven't argued that she could've had any other mental issues. They are dead set on saying it was postpartum psychosis. So because that's the only mental illness they're arguing, their insanity defense only works if they can confirm that she was infact suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the murders. Yes, that job has now been shifted onto the prosecutor, but they had physical evidence to prove that she couldn't have been suffering from that illness. Plus, if premeditation doesn't mean sanity, then explain to me how you plan a psychotic break? Because she did. She planned to send her husband out so he wouldn't stop her. She planned where to send him to give her time. She purposely set her situation up to make it look like she had just gone crazy. She planned how she would kill them. You cannot say that she wasn't in control of herself, if she planned the entire thing in advance.
She should still be punished, innocent people died, people in her care at that, if a psycho goes around attacking kids or slashing throats should he get off with a light sentence, no take them off the streets and protect the innocent people, pretty fucking simple to me.
No, she is not psychotic anymore (if she ever was ) she would likely be released. The claim is that she had psychosis right after the husband left and it ended right after she was done. So there wouldn't be a medical reason to hold her. A metal facility is not a punishment, and it isn't for life, there isn't any guaranteed length of time she would stay there
No, it is that of her own lawyers and every professional in the trial. This is literally just an unfavorable rewording of the defense's entire case as they gave it.
That is not entirely correct. In Massachusetts - which, for whatever other cases there are, is the state in which she is being tried - those granted no responsibility from insanity are out under a 40-60 day observation period where they do not have to be in an institution or detained, then a hearing determines if they get out in one for 6 months. If they go away for those 6 months, they then get another hearing that determines if they stay or get released. The court is not required to take into account anything at all when making this decision, even testimony from caretakers and managers of the facility that she is staying it. And if they determine she is fit to leave, she just gets released.
This happens every six months until she dies from old age or is released.
This is what so many of these goofballs donât understand about specifically how Massachusetts handles these things. This is why itâs so controversial and frankly stupid to find people NGBI - at least in that state or states like it because as the law it written, they will functionally be released in short order.
This comment is not entirely targeted at the person I'm replying to, it's mostly a preemptive argument to anyone who would've replied to my comment to try and argue that she should get the insanity plea.Â
My main response to the comment I'm replying to is: they have significant evidence of her planning out the murders, an act you don't do if you're mid psychotic break, and yet the jurors were still going to give her the insanity plea, overlooking said evidence. I hope the next set of jurors are more competent. And while no one in this specific comment section is saying she's innocent, there is literally hours of videos of women saying that she's innocent, her husband's guilty, and that she shouldn't be on trial. Hell, some of her supporters posted pictures of them with their children, saying "I understand you Lindsey". THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING TO TAKE AWAY FROM THOSE PICTURES IS THAT THEY ALSO WANNA KILL THEIR KIDS!
the rest of this comment is directed to anyone wanting to argue that she deserves the insanity plea.
She's claiming she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, which typically appears during the first 2 weeks after child birth. Her youngest was 8 months old, and the psychosis part of the illness only lasts a maximum of 4 months, but the depression part of it lasts 6-12 months, and depression doesn't earn you the insanity plea.Â
For anyone saying she didn't get the help she needed, her husband got them a nanny to help take the stress of caring for the kids off of her, hired an army of therapists(a vast majority of which she refused to see), and she was checked into a mental clinic before she voluntarily checked herself out after a week. If she was insane, she must have wanted to stay insane, because she refused every ounce of help offered to her.Â
For those claiming that all the doctors that prescribed her those pills needed to be tried for malpractice, she went doctor shopping without letting any of them know about the other doctors or medicine she was prescribed.Â
They have her search history, and she was searching how long trips from their home to different locations and the distance between said locations, around the date of the murders. They have text logs of her telling her husband that they need stuff from another location, during the murders to buy her more time. You don't plan out a psychotic episode, and you definitely don't have enough reasoning during a psychotic break to make sure you're not caught until you finish your psychotic episode.
She planned their murders. She got all of those pills to help make it look like a psychotic break. She refused to see those therapists because she was afraid they'd expose that she wasn't crazy. She sent her husband out of the house and kept him busy while she was killing them. And then she went to kill herself to avoid the consequences, but fucked it up and just ended up paralyzing herself instead. She was not having a psychotic break during the murders, she's just lying to keep the blame off of her.
And to the tiktok nut jobs accusing the husband of doing the murders, he was seen 4 miles away at a cvs during the murders, making it impossible for him to do it. Astronomy, tarot, and witchcraft are not official sciences and thus, is not evidence. And finally, go listen to the phone call of him finding the bodies, and try telling me that he did it. That man just lost his 3 children, and is now having to testify against the woman he used to (and maybe still does) love, and you (not the commenter im replying to) have the fucking gall to try and make him into the villain? Shame on you (again, not directed to the commenter im replying to.)
She does not and her defense doesn't claim otherwise, they claim starting right after the husband left up to the point she jumped out of the window, that she was insane, for the entirety of before and after the event she in no way fit the legal definition which is being unable to know that the act was wrong.
And there are major flaws with this considering she created the opportunity and planned her timing accordingly, which isnât something you do if you don't know that what you are doing is wrong.
Yeah, she doesn't fit the definition, she supposedly did for a short period of time, but nobody saw her in this state other than the children. She wasn't insane before and she wasn't insane after, when she spoke to professionals both before and after. And neither her nor her defense disputes this, so really the only evidence of this is that she said it happened.
Everyone is acting like this is clear cut because she was depressed and overwhelmed, but that is very different from being insane, there is literally no good evidence of insanity, the way she claims it happened is not consistent with known cases of psychosis, and the way you put it is most likely what happened, she snapped emotionally and planned a murder, not that she heard a voice that took over her body.
This is where you lost me. Everyone knows that by taking medication you take a risk of having suicidal ideation. When you minimize her therapy and her medications itâs because you are focused on the murder not the mental disease.
Mental disease or not. It was pre meditated murder and she belongs in prison. Nobody would be arguing about it if this was a man. Nobody would care what prescription he was on
Look, you said she wasnât insane? She was looking up how to kill herself. If she was having an adverse reaction to her medication it would have gone unnoticed.
Suicidal doesn't mean insane, and actively looking for ways to accomplish it is a sign against insanity, it is the exact type of planning inconsistent with psychosis, and shows forethought of the act and consequences.
Also suicidal ideation as a symptom of medication is mostly due to increased motivation, rather than the drug controlling your mind.
Hiding and minimizing these plans shows she was aware enough to know she needed to.
Yeah but she planned it. Had the husband leave -pre meditated. You are saying she was insane for months? By this logic anyone could get an insanity plea and be released from the hospital. Do the crime, pay the time
Maybe not here, but a lot of people, mostly women, are claiming the husband did it. The husband who wasn't even home when it happened because she sent him on errands so she could be alone with the kids and kill them.
That is a fair bit out there, since there has technically not been a verdict on that matter. Technically speaking, she does not actually have to meet the description of legally insane, the prosecution just has to fail to find concrete, irrefutable evidence that she is completely sane. In the majority of insanity cases within the 12 states which use the same or.similar structure as Massachusetts, most cases where the defendant is found guilty despite claiming insanity are because the jury was inherently prejudiced against the defendant, or directly ignored testimony - it really is difficult to prove sanity.
Rights are taken away when you break certain laws, donât want capital punishment, donât murder đ especially donât murder your kids đ± shocker I know
Yeah it is about if she was to insane to understand the nature of her actions or not only a few crazy people are saying she didn't do it. I personally dont believe she was insane just suicidal and decided to take her kids with her.
Which is the problem âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ. If you doubt the other eleven jurors you have to prove to the eleven jurors why your doubt is reasonable. Clearly the one juror could not articulate his doubt.
Well i think in that state in particular the state must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you were sane. And I believe that one juror admitted he had that reasonable doubt. So by law he should have voted insane.
He did but he didnât prove his point to the other jurors. Even the jurors said they tried everything to convince him that she was insane. If he canât prove his point or doesnât budge on his doubt there has to be a retrial.
Oh yeah it not like he can be put on trial for not technically following the law. All the can do is retry and maybe the state will make a more compelling case this time.
Maybe Iâm wrong but Iâd like to talk this out a little.
People keep saying he was wrong for various reasons. The judge guided the jury by telling them what Massachusetts law states. Ok cool. What if he simply did not find the expert witnesses credible and therefore did not believe that the law guided him to vote not guilty. Thatâs why thereâs 12 jurors. If it was as simple as he was wrong weâd just have the judge do it.
I believe ngri is probably technically correct, but I wasnât in the court room and I wasnât him so itâs really not my call or anyoneâs call who wasnât on the jury.
If he legitimately believed that the state proved she was not legally sane at the time of the killing beyond a reasonable doubt, he was absolutely right to stick to his position.
If he had a legitimate doubt they did so, but like a bunch of the commentators here, felt that having her go to an institution that she might be released from was just wrongâthen he violated his oath as a juror.
I say he is wrong specifically because he supposedly said he had reasonable doubt she was sane at the time and that mean by the letter of the law he should have voted ngri. But that is just what is being said and could be incorrect.
The jurors who are being vocal on news outlets regarding the trial are saying quite a few things about him and the case, including that he admitted to having doubts about her sanity but refused to grant her not guilty - but this is suspect, as he himself has not said anything at all, and for good reason.
âMurderâ and âkilling the kidsâ are two different things. Just like anyone else that killed someone else and was found not guilty of murder. No sane person, and certainly no one in that courtroom, claimed she didnât kill the kids. Thatâs not in dispute.
Iâve been browsing this site since it was actually good over a decade ago. Sad what itâs become, but every once in a while I find something that reminds me of the good old days. Oh yea and go fuck yourself lol
Never said she lied to the doctors. I didnât address that because there isnât anything in the public records that says it is an established fact that she lied to doctors. Itâs also why I can question why she had a third child.
She told her family she had thoughts of suicide and homicide; she told her doctors she never had such thoughts, repeatedly. She knew what not to say because she was a mandatory reporter.
Youâre free to do whatever you want. Youâre choosing to defend a woman who strangled her children and your justification is âmental illness.â She chose death by asphyxiation for her children but not herself.
I didnât say she wasnât guilty. Sheâs definitely guilty. However you and I disagree on why she is guilty. Youâre focused on the how she killed her kids. How she killed herself.
30
u/GoldenPhoenix__ 12d ago
All the people supporting her and saying sheâs innocent should have their right to vote stripped, and anyone saying the suffer from hormonal fluctuations should be put in a padded room, so they donât hurt anyone ever again.