"He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children".

Imagine that.

"...packed with teachers and nurses who thought the hero holdout was "very arrogant" and "completely disregarded" their expertise."

Yeah, the picture is becoming clearer now.

https://x.com/libbyemmons/status/2097433403339534437

I hope to see the 11 on a Death Pool soon!

This trial was won during jury selection. The prosecution might as well threw in the towel once they were picked. I do not know how that works but the defense had to be thrilled

she should be removed from society permanently.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: old rugged cross,

Hoo boy. Take the seven minutes and listen to this.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
This trial was won during jury selection. The prosecution might as well threw in the towel once they were picked. I do not know how that works but the defense had to be thrilled

she should be removed from society permanently.

Lawyers don’t pick the Jury, they pick who they don’t want on the Jury. I imagine quite a few were struck for cause because they were honest and expressed a bias towards one side or the other. The women who ended up on this jury did say they could be fair, objective and listen to all the evidence and witnesses, when in fact, they had already made up their minds that she was not guilty due to insanity or mental issue. Hell, I imagine they were angry they didn’t get a completely not guilty-acquittal verdict option.

That the law is given such that victims are reduced to the object of the act, and the defendant becomes the subject of the inquiry as to their state of mind, has and likely never will, sit well with me.

This paradigm that seems to forget the victim(s), and then tries to project empathy and concern for the perpetrator, sickens me.

I have never been able to rationalize or find the mindset, reasonable.

I just cannot.

A person certainly may be "insane" when committing similar atrocity, but they should never be permitted to have opportunity to repeat.

If that means putting them to death, so that.
If it means life incarceration, until 24 hours after they reach room temperature? Just as well.

But nothing else is acceptable.

I take no delight, nor wish any suffering upon those that commit these acts, only that they are rendered incapable of ever doing so again.

Conspiracy theory is reasonable doubt now?
Too bad the exhusband can't sue the defense into poverty for slandering him.

quote:

posted by jsbcody: The women who ended up on this jury did say they could be fair, objective and listen to all the evidence and witnesses, when in fact, they had already made up their minds that she was not guilty due to insanity or mental issue.

Then they were lying. Isn't lying during voir dire perjury? If not, it ought to be. It would be difficult to prove in either case.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
"He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children".

Imagine that.

Thank God for the one holdout juror.

And... the Judge who did the right thing by not allowing him to be replaced.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
This paradigm that seems to forget the victim(s), and then tries to project empathy and concern for the perpetrator, sickens me.

I agree with sigmonkey. Sickening.

Defense lawyers are allowed quite a bit of leeway for "creative" defenses, but wanting a juror thrown off because the lawyer didn't like his vote is just plain dirty pool. It crosses a line.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
Conspiracy theory is reasonable doubt now?
Too bad the exhusband can't sue the defense into poverty for slandering him.

Who says he can't?

They/them/dem were going to find her not criminally responsible. Bewildering...


https://x.com/YounisJoseph/status/2095974356497387786

https://x.com/townhallcom/stat...clancy-jury-n2682662



This really does sound like a Norm McDonald punchline.
https://x.com/nixonist/status/...clancy-jury-n2682662

I don't care how many times you try her , you will never get a unanimous guilty verdict. So then what ?

It maybe that the law dictated a particular outcome and 11 people used reason and logic to come to that outcome, but an AI algorithm could do that. If that is the case, then number 12 decided the law was absurd and decided justice for the victims was more important than justice for the perpetrator. 12 is a great number.

Jury of her peers...Well 11 out of 12 anyway!

Juror number 12 should sue her defense attorney for exposing his vote as the lone holdout. A nice civil suit for doing that and a demand to suspend his license to practice law.

Now anyone planning on sitting on a jury has a defense that they don't want to serve for fear of their vote being exposed and subjected to harm from lunatics because of what the defense attorney can do to them if they don't vote their way, for that matter, any prosecution attorney could do the same.

We are now exposing jurors under the current trend of intimidation via exposing people through SM for not capitulating to the mob.

Her attorney has done irreparable damage to the legal process with his tirade, notice all the focus on one vote and the women coming out to harm him with these statements, it's cancel culture 101.

Juror 12 should sue the hell out of every one of those other jurors that has come out speaking that way, this is a dangerous precedent.

Now he needs to find a favorable host(s) online and do interviews on why he couldn't agree that just because she killed her kids she should get off on a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.

With a good coach he could rake in a lot of interview fees, write a book, do a movie on it....

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.“

A couple of days back I saw something (sorry can't recall where, my old memory is not what it used to be) that suggested children be taken away from any woman diagnosed with whatever mental issues Clancy had. Makes a lot of sense to me but I'm sure the judicial system would disagree.