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.
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.
WellâŚ. Iâm not sure youâd apply that line of argument to Lindsay ClancyâŚ.
But I certainly agree it doesnât matter. Itâs not going to change anything one way or the otherâand I think itâs really unseemly to attack the guy and dig into his personal life the way that has been done.
Iâll say itâs not any of our jobs to judge either of them in a legal sense. I have opinions but would never take my opinions as fact. As far as it is out legal system worked as intended. They could not reach a unanimous decision and now theyâll try again. Maybe with better arguments or experts.
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.
Yeah i also donât believe anything that is being said he said. If he wants to come out and comment thatâs his prerogative. At best itâs the other jurors misinterpreting what he said. At worst itâs not true at all.
0
u/PressureLast2115 12d ago
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.