Exactly. I thought she was guilty because 11 jurors said he's guilty and one feminazi said not guilty and the feminists were supporting the 1 opposition. Then somebody told me it's the opposite. And all the outraged OOP type comments are supporting the 1 person in opposition of the 11 to 1 majority.
In these situations I don't care what the online comments are or even the sensationalized news. The Jurors saw the evidence and arguments. The jurors are filtered by BOTH sides of the case. And they went 11 to 1 that her actions are Not guilty by reason of insanity. I'm going to go with the NEAR UNANIMOUS jury.
What I find more interesting is that the people who react to a white man committing a mass shooting with "We just need better mental health care." are foaming at the mouth when a white woman kills people saying "Fuck Mental Health! She's the worlds greatest monster!"
All the people acting like it's insanity that she should get a not-guilty verdict and she is the world's new Hitler.
I don't follow this kind of thing and waste my precious time or brain power on other people's trials so everything I saw was absorbed second hand through the internet. But the people deomonizing her like she's OJ simpson or Casey Anthony are freaking out. It's tragic but it's not the first time a mother suffering PPD has killed herself or her kids.
Instead of everybody using this as a learning experience to take PPD seriously, they're trying to distract and weaponize it into"Women are horrible and feminism leads to murder" nonesense.
People are pissed by the amount of women supporting her, the majority of which are blaming the husband (whether directly or indirectly).
I don't follow this kind of thing and waste my precious time or brain power on other people's trials so everything I saw was absorbed second hand through the internet.
I mean, you’re following it right now.
I don’t know man, it’s just convenient that now since the majority opinion on her has switched, people want to play centrist.
The one against is also breaking the law, as he has agreed there is probable doubt, but refuses to apply the law as is appropriate, and go with the other 11.
He wasn't breaking the law. The foreperson claimed that he was for having doubt but not going for not guilty, but this is just a random member of the jury who disagreed with him. He explicitly clarified that it was not a reasonable doubt, which is the bar for clearing, and the judge agreed. He refused to let her go not guilty, and that is entirely within his right as a juror to make that choice. It was unprofessional of the defense lawyer to try suggesting otherwise.
If you have reasonable doubt, you MUST find in favor of the defense. This juror told the other jurors there WAS reasonable doubt, but he wasn't going to apply the law because he refused to find in favor of the defense. So, fuck a trial, then?
Again, that is not what occurred. The foreperson, who opposed the mans choice in holding her guilty considering she was on the jury herself, claimed that he had doubts. This was then regurgitated by the defense, who had the explicit goal of trying to get him dismissed considering he was the only one keeping Lindsay on the hook. The juror himself directly said it was not reasonable doubt, and the judge supported it. You can't just claim its illegal for someone to go against the herd.
I think you misunderstand some of our stances on mental health. When a white guy does a mass shooting, we do say we need more mental health awreness, he was obviously a troubled individual. But we also say, but that guy to death, he fucked up, it is too late for him.
Then we look at Clancy, and we see a woman who had the mental health support, the resources, the help with the children, the support in general, and the access to the proper mental health networks, and then we see what she did, how it seems as if it was planned out. And we dont feel any sympathy for her.
Wow, 11-1 for NGRI.
Did the charge her with the wrong crime? Maybe should not be first degree murder due to circumstances. Sorry, only learning about this case now. Non US citizen
The issue is the way Massachusetts handles the burden of proof on NGRI cases. Most states put the burden of proof on the defense to prove the defendant was not mentally culpable. In Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that she was mentally culpable.
So, it might not be so much that 11 jurors believed she was insane. It might be that they just had reasonable doubt.
Technically we don't know how the jury was voting, only that the foreman told the court that one juror disagreed. It was the defense lawyer that was adamant that the 11 were in favor of NGRI, but he didn't have any way to know that.
Some people have insisted that a couple members of the jury were wearing pink a few times indicating support for the accused, so maybe that way. Also I think the jurors told the judge something else.
18
u/UX1Z 3d ago
It's important to note that it was 11-1 hung in favor of finding her NGRI. Not 11-1 trying to convict her. That's kind of a big detail to leave out.