There will never be a more obvious sentence to look back on and explain the insanity of our times than the following…
— Tandy (@dantypo) September 8, 2026
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children." pic.twitter.com/i7dnLg2MlE
She's quoted in "Three Jurors in Clancy Trial Describe Frustration With Holdout/The three jurors, who voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy of murder, described the tense deliberations in an interview with a Boston TV station" (NYT gift link).
CORRECTION: I'd connected the quote to one of the other jurors who spoke to the press.
ALSO: Another juror "said that the holdout 'completely disregarded' information that nurses on the jury provided to help interpret medical reports from the hospital where Ms. Clancy stayed after she killed her children." Wasn't the juror at least entitled to reject extraneous "information" from an unsworn witness? Consider "Experts in the Jury Room: When Personal Experience Is Extraneous Information" (Stanford Law Review).
AND: Longer video:
@nbcwashington Three jurors from Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial are speaking out after the case ended in a mistrial, describing the jury’s deliberations and the holdout juror who prevented them from reaching a unanimous verdict. #lindsayclancy ♬ original sound - NBC4 Washington
Mga Post
176 (na) komento:
…when you don’t have the law, the facts or the table on your side, pound the propaganda media talk shows…
Also being reported that one or more the female nurses on the jury was "explaining" the toxicology reports to other jurors.
Um...yeah. He did. Why didn't you, hag?
God bless that man. God damn the rest of them.
Un fricking believable.
Wow!
"One juror said the holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt after the panel watched a video interview. Believing they had reached an insanity verdict, she began signing the verdict forms. 'I was so excited,' she said."
I guess some of these witches thought it was a basketball game instead of trial.
I'd be interested in the thoughts and thought process of the other two males on the jury, who were with the majority. Anybody have insight into that?
I still wonder what would have happened if Massachusetts had a Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) statute.
I note from the linked article that Clancy is being held In a state-run psychiatric facility.
I can't just put aside the dead children, either.
Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy were somewhat less excited.
I just can’t understand why the holdout wouldn’t listen to the other jurors.
How did Reddington know that the one juror had allegedly acknowledged reasonable doubt before the mistrial was declared? Did he have a mole on the jury?
So it's the prosecutions burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt?
These psycho women are as sick as Lindsay Clancy herself. Keep digging Progressive women. Between protecting murderers, and wanting men to play in women sports, women don't have a bigger enemy than Progressive white women.
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."
In all the time since Gutenberg first laid paper upon his press, has a more clear example of cognitive dissonance been printed?
The jurors were critical of the prosecution, with Ms. Farina describing it as “harsh,” in comparison to the defense’s style, which she described as “compassionate.”
That says it all. They wanted a warm and cuddly prosecution.
- Krumhorn
Gerda: "So it's the prosecutions burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt?"
As I understand it, that is the law in MA. Pretty much everywhere else it's the defendant's burden to prove insanity.
The forewoman tells the judge the holdout is violating his oath, then the defense attorney puts him in physical danger and tries to get him arrested and it turns out it's at least 3 other jurors, including the forewoman, who did the violating.
But there will be no consequences for their lawlessness.
"That misogynist just couldn't get over the fact that Dawson and Callan's eyes were bursting while Cora bled from her nose and mouth from being strangled by their mother so brutally. Why couldn't he see it was her husband's fault. What's wrong with him?"
I'm very glad these three women have spoken out. The rest of the country can now see what a threat to the Republic these liberal white women are.
These are the same people who hate Trump with a passion.
We will never have common ground with these people.
The bizarre thing is that they think they are right.
These women are without moral clarity and reason. They are the result of a lifetime of Democrat politics.
Just plain nuts!
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/11/04/3c1104153bce28346f26ef8df73bad8b.jpg
I don't know what's worse, the triumphalism of their clear emotional bias or that they're practically having geriatric orgasms getting to throw shade at the holdout to the media. It's practically giving them hot flashes.
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that she viciously killed her children."
Ms. Blacknails has the hardest time getting off the fact that Linsey Clancy is a woman and as such entitled to the right of filicide.
So far this week, I've rewatched two classics about corrupt jury trials, "12 Angry Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird". The Clancy jurors more closely resemble the ignorant and bigoted white farmers who sat in judgement of Tom Robinson, the kindly one-handed black sharecropper who could not have beaten Mayella Ewell even if he wanted to.
Forget the Boston Redsox. This is the season of the Boston Rednecks.
Pure evil. What disgusting, degenerate people. But hey, YAY!! Gloria Steinem, YAY! abortion rights until 5 odd 6.
Leftist women and their dickless male enablers are the modern Democrat party.
12 Angry Men gets reasonable doubt all wrong (link to AV Club)
Also, It's a case study in exactly the kind of misconduct that by some reporting was going on in the Clancy jury, with jurors creating their own "expert' testimony outside of the trial.
“ So it's the prosecutions burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt?”
As boatbuilder noted, that seems to be the way the law is written in MA. I prefer the law written to require the defense to affirm insanity rather than use it as a cause for reasonable doubt. MA law does make it easier to reach a majority or unanimous reasonable doubt.
After 40+ years as a insurance defense civil trial attorney I realized that it is never about the proof. If your client is not likable, you better be. Alternatively, showing that the opposite party is a liar or otherwise unlikeable works, too. But the number one rule of jury selection was never let a schoolteacher on the jury if you can help it. Increases the deliberation time fivefold. Also, if there is a technical issue involved, never allow a person with any supposed expertise in that field on the jury. They can never resist using that "expertice" to explain things like medical records or other technical documents to the other jurors. I was picking a jury in a personal injury case and two doctors got seated in the panel. During voir dire, a codefendants attorney did the dumb move of asking them about the doctors who were going to testify. Both doctors, of course, said they were excellent. I had already decided to remove them with peremptories if I could not get them off for cause. But we knocked them off right then and there and continued with jury selection. Another juror then asked me why we had removed the jurors who were best qualified to judge the case. I spent about 15 minutes explaining that every bit of evidence and expert opinion they were to evaluate came from the witness stand and was subject to cross-examination to show whether it was credible, not subject to bias, interest or prejudice. But, a self appointed expert in the jury room was not. I emphasized the upcoming court instruction that they were only allowed to consider the evidence received after being subjected to that examination. She was nodding along and smiling as i explained that. The case settled before verdict so I don't know what would
Have happened. But, I know from other cases that that instruction gets ignored all the time. Not to pile on, but the prosecution did a poor job of jury selection. And the jurors are so witless that they are revealing the extent that they ignored the court's instructions. "Main character" syndrome on display.
She demonstrated a disposition to entertain abortive ideation and take affirmative action for causes other than self-defense. An insanity plea is an article of faith, an appeal to authority, that denies human consciousness and agency. She can never be trusted again. Send her to Planned Perphood where a burden on the individual and society can be relieved.
"Three jurors told NBC they hoped there wasn't a second trial - but if there is - all three said they plan to attend in support of Clancy."
Well they wore pink during the verdict, as if their solipsism would even permit them to admit they're unable to delay such gratification.
I'm glad they went public. Men need to see this.
**Christopher B said...12 Angry Men gets reasonable doubt all wrong (link to AV Club)**
12 Angry Men employed an "unreasonable doubt" standard and called it reasonable doubt. That's fairly well recognized now, but I wonder how it was received at the time.
It's the husband's fault. When he discovered his murdered children here should have beat his wife to death.
This case reminds me of the whole trans debate; both with mutilation of children and allowing men to play in women's sports.
A rational person looks at this issue and says, WTF.
To this day, I cannot believe that the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Nebraska Medicine duped and tricked mentally ill minors and their parents to have healthy female breasts removed. Sex change operations and agressive hormone therapy. I personally told the University of Nebraska Regents that this was deeply immoral and that after WW2 the civilized world agreed that there would be no more medical experiments on humans.
But those heathen Huskers had done it and it took the Legislature to pass a law to stop them. They couldn't understand how wrong this was.
The other astounding thing is that an instructor at UNL Law wrote a law review article alleging that men had no physical advantage over women in sports. I wrote to the Dean at Husker Law and told him that this was factually wrong.
The arrogant prick wrote back and said the author was one of the best students ever at Corn Law.
But now we have the SCOTUS case that held (6-3) that a state can ban boys from playing sports against girls. MA, however, has the exact opposite law from W. Virginia's. As AI puts it, "the law protects the rights of students to play on teams that align with their gender identity."
The jurors in "12 Angry Men" aren't rednecks, at least not all of them. One is a obsessive Yankees fan who resents being called for jury duty on the day of home game he has tickets for. (Fortunately for him rained out.) Most of the others are decent enough men whose minds are clouded by daily news reports of savage crimes in "the slums". The holdout is a curious man who wants to play Sherlock Holmes with the evidence. And one is a severely damaged paranoid neurotic who never should have been empaneled. Eleven jurors willing to listen and reason for a few hours, the exact opposite of the hopeless bigots of Boston.
The three crazy liberal women are EXACTLY who we thought they were. No surprise at all.
The nurses on this jury rank right up there with the attention obsessed COVID dancing nurses.
From what I’ve seen (and I tried to avoid it), I don’t think the idea of an insanity finding is too far fetched -I really don’t know (nor do I think the vast majority of people commenting do), but it’s plausible. It’s not a gendered issue - men have, on occasion, killed their families and successfully used an insanity defense -it’s just one of those horrible things that happen sometimes.
But man, the people defending Clancy don’t make it easy for me to hold this opinion.
So the lone holdout juror is guilty of two thought crimes - not letting Clancy get away with killing her children and disregarding the women nurses' toxicology lectures.
Fortunately, most people do not indulge dogmatic belief in Diversity (i.e. bloc ideologies) to color their judgment and inform their pride and prejudice, nor do they blindly place their faith in secular gods and goddesses. #HateLovesAbortion
“Women kill their kids all the time. The world is an imperfect place.” — John Bender, The Breakfast Club
Can they abort the fetus (a technical term-of-art), cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her toxic carbon, and have her, too? Maybe, baby, not for causes other than self-defense. That said, the lone juror offers an opportunity to rehabilitate human consciousness and agency as an article of consensus, not appeal to authority. Progress.
@Lyssa, it is impossible to deny rational premeditation on Clancy's part based on the evidence that was presented without a pure appeal to emotion, which is exactly what's on display by these jurors. She made plans (forethought) in addition to other evidence that she clearly understood what she was doing was wrong (obstruction, "hiding").
She should be executed, publicly, preferably on the quad at Wesleyan.
If she was really insane, why didn't she try to murder her children at any random time, like when her husband was at home? Instead, she sent him out on errands and then systematically killed all three. After that, she made a half-assed attempt to commit suicide.
"Wasn't the juror at least entitled to reject extraneous 'information' from an unsworn witness?"
Wasn't the juror obligated to reject extraneous "information" from an unsworn witness? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
"You shall well and truly try the issue between the commonwealth and the defendant, (or the defendants, as the case may be,) according to your evidence; so help you God." That's the oath in Massachusetts. Apparently the Boston Rednecks interpret "your evidence" to include whatever amoral idiocy you've accumulated over a lifetime before you were even summoned for jury duty.
@RideSpaceMountain, I’m aware of that, and if I were on the jury (thank god I’m not), I’d need an explanation for it. But it doesn’t seem to be unique in insanity cases, so I’m not going to be convinced it’s as open and shut as all that based on Internet chatter.
I wonder how a nurse could make it onto the jury, trying a homicidal nurse, which side asked for her. I wonder why the other jurors accepted this 'expert opinionating' by that nurse, helping to guide the jury by reinterpreting the evidence presented in the trial. I wonder who the juror was, that leaked the problem to the defense attorney, who is as corrupt as they come, trying to bully out a preferred verdict - he should be sanctioned for that behavior. All of this should be probed, because the court system has some serious holes in it.
I salute the lone juror who allowed his conscience and his courage to stand his ground. He's a staunch one, in the face of these harpies and the two male slugs that are outraged that he wouldn't conform.
They should have held the trial in Salem. That would have been the capper. Massachusetts could finally hold their head high, showcasing the fully modernized, full inverted picture of history. A reverse witch trial, where the real witch is set free and the one man insistent on pointing out the evil is set upon by the crowd and will now be burned, for following the rules of law and not accommodating the mob.
A juror cannot bring up facts not presented in court. Did this nurse give opinions that could be argued they were wrong? I mean the nurse was not a sworn in witness.. she could have been wrong in her 'opinion'...
I don't care about the why... the drugs, the hormones the hearsay... She methodically strangled her own children.
All I need to know.
Not that long ago these same women would have been seen wearing pussy hats in their local "I hate Trump" protest. Or Handmaiden's Tale costumes. They would be protesting in favor of abortion at any age, for any reason, so certainly, killing your living children for a reason has to be acceptable
She killed the children to hurt the husband. Had she only killed herself, he would have had the children to console him. She was so angry at him (the usual resentments that build up during marriage having been compounded by the "unresponsive" medical corps) that removing herself wouldn't be hurtful enough; she had to take away the source of his joy. Is that insanity? No, it's plain old rage. Angry killers aren't insane. They're just full of murderous fury.
Didn't mean to submit yet....
What I was getting to was these are completely consistent women. Consistent in their bizarre approval of anti-life mentality. It is baked into the left today. It is at the very foundation of the progressive/DSA mentality that is getting elected as we stand by and shake our heads in wonderment.
"the holdout 'completely disregarded' information that nurses on the jury provided"
I blame dancing nurse videos during Covid.
I like the fact that Massachusetts is giving us a first-hand look at what the country (and the world) would be like if it was ruled by women. So that little thought exercise is now over.
Aggie, a week or so ago Steve Sailer mentioned in passing that Marcia Clark (the OJ prosecutor) had the mistaken idea women's solidarity would lead female jurors to convict OJ, and she happily agreed with the defense to seat a panel of mostly black women. I suspect something similar might have been in play with the selection of women for the Clancy jury with the prosecution misjudging how they would react to the defendant.
Oh Yeah said "I just can’t understand why the holdout wouldn’t listen to the other jurors. "
He did listen to them. Decided they were wrong and listened to his own moral compass and the reality of the case. Didn't cave to the majority and remained true to himself.
You can have several things true at once....She is mentally ill and sanely preplanned the murders. Mentally ill and Guilty.
I think that was the big problem with this case -- some of the jurors, i.e., the nurses, were acting like wild card experts. These women likely presented their medical opinions as facts and unduly influenced the jury. Obviously if these jurors were doing "independent research" at home, this would be a problem.
I think the prosecutors probably thought that the nurses would be good jurors. Their knowledge of complex medical issues would be invaluable in helping the jury wade through the defenses' BS. But the prosecutors were wrong. Personally, I think nurses make terrible jurors. They're intelligent but they overestimate the utility of their knowledge and tend to speak over people. More importantly, these women trauma bond with each other. In high-stress environments where they experience shared traumatic events or emotional challenges, these women form unhealthy bonds with their patients, co-workers and institutions as they support each other through difficult situations. These relationships are tumultuous or toxic (note the screaming and intimidation that the female jurors were so casual about!).
@FunkyPhD, another woman very recently shot her own toddler in the head to deny the husband she was divorcing custody. Look it up. She even said she was proud to be able to hurt him so much and that if she could she'd do it again.
Every amateur astrologer tiktok princess accusing Clancy's husband of the murders and harassing his family should be gathered in a small area and machinegunned to death. Their pink shirts ought to hide the blood nicely, so the petty narcissists ought to be pleased they'll still look fabulous. They can be buried in matching pumps at taxpayer expense. Very tasteful.
While all of us have a personal opinion on Clancy's guilt, on her insanity defense, none of us actually sat there and listened to all of the testimony, and then deliberated in private with the rest of the jurors. Personally I don't buy the insanity defense, but that's just a spectator talking, not fully informed enough to qualify an opinion. I wouldn't have had a problem with Clancy being found Not Guilty by reason of Insanity, if that were the unanimous verdict.
The major problem is how the jury deliberated, and how they found a way to leak to the Defense, who then tried to use it as leverage. The Mob, flexing on the lone juror who was being faithful to his oath. The court system should be rallying to defense of its own lawful 'Raison d’être', but I am guessing that in Massachusetts, there will be not even an acknowledgement that a serious miscarriage has just happened, and needs correcting.
I'm glad the holdout juror in the Clancy case did what he did - sort of a reverse "jury nullification." But, just for the record, if he did in fact, as claimed by other jurors, acknowledge to them that he had reasonable doubt about her guilt but went on to vote guilty in spite of that, he in fact did something legally wrong in the sense of violating his duty as a juror as defined by the judge's standard instructions. Though, fortunately for him, it was not “illegal” in the sense of being a crime he can be prosecuted for. If what they said is true, the judge should indeed have disqualified him.
I'm just pointing out some facts of the matter. Again, I'm glad it turned out as it did.
DBQ, that's exactly correct. The Massachusetts case law specifically allows a guilty verdict even if the defendant suffers from a mental illness or other defect if they show by words and actions they understand what they are doing is wrong and have the ability to conform their conduct to the law.
So we are OK with post-natal abortion now? Only issue to resolve is up to what age. How about 26, the age our children become responsible for their own health care?
And is not wanting to pay child support a good enough reason?
While I agree 100% with the holdout juror, I’d like to point out that one can be crazy but not stupid. That Clancy wss able to plan an effective course of action does not automatically make her sane.
ISNAL, so I did some research. This was the clearest explanation of Massachusetts law I found:
“Under Massachusetts law she’s not criminally responsible if her illness took away either her ability to know what she was doing was wrong, or her ability to stop herself. Either one alone means not guilty by reason of insanity.
The prosecution has to prove she was sane. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn’t have to prove she was insane, they just have to make it reasonably possible. A tie goes to the defense.
Nobody in this trial disputes that she was seriously mentally ill. The prosecution concedes it. But sick is not the test. The question is which kind of sick because two kinds lead to opposite verdicts.
Delusion means the fact checker in your brain is broken. You believe things that are false. Voices are real. If that’s what happened, she may not have been able to know or to stop. Not guilty.
Despair means the fact checker works but hope is gone. You see reality accurately and find it unbearable. That’s what severe depression does. A person acting from despair is still making a choice. A sick, agonized choice, but a choice. Guilty.
Same act, same suffering, opposite verdicts.”
Three facts say she was not delusional. First is her attempted suicide.* Second is her subterfuge to get her husband out of the house. But to me the critical one is that she was examined by a psychiatrist THE DAY BEFORE THE MURDERS and found to be not delusional.
_______________
* It does not help Clancy’s that the suicide attempt looks like a phoney attempt that went wrong. She leapt from a second story into a pile of snow.
That woman saying that with a crucifix necklace is just chef's kiss.
The prosecuting team gets a do-over. I wonder what they will try to do differently in the next go-around. The judge also gets a do-over and I imagine that he sees that there were some holes in his jury management so I wonder how he'll try to plug them in Clancy 2.0.
Leftwing women - "You must have compassion for Clancy."
No I don't.
and I do not.
And I will say again. If I was actually insane and killed my kids because a voice told me to, then when I came out of it, I'd walk myself to the state firing squad so my kids would know how sorry I was.
Ice Nine, I agree with your conclusion if what is said about the hold out is accurate. However I found the reporting surrounding the jury deliberation confusing and since it appears to be based mostly on communication from the foreman who was one of the women pushing for not guilty as well as the defense attorney's statements I am skeptical that we're getting an accurate summation of his position.
Mao, Hitler et al were, by expert consensus, clinically insane. They were just relieving their "burdens" of state and mind, but now they're feeling much better about themselves. Consciousness and agency are articles of individual and popular consensus. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HateLovesAbortion
"I'd be interested in the thoughts and thought process of the other two males on the jury, who were with the majority. Anybody have insight into that?"
I was wondering the same thing but I think they might never be heard from- I suspect that they are embarrassed by what they did and this applies to the other six female jurors who apparently didn't want to share their thoughts the way these three morons did.
I think it's insane to count so-called "insanity" as a defense.
Not only in this case...
All in line the purposeful progressive plot to allow and dismiss criminal behavior.
Well the jurors were insane whats the remedy
One of the reasons I feel so strongly about why Clancy needed to be convicted of 1st degree murder is this- she is trying to avoid punishment in the first place. I asked myself what I would do if I had strangled my three young children during a psychotic episode-- and the answer I keep coming back to is that the horror and the guilt would overwhelm me so badly I would want to be sent to prison or executed. The one thing I would not be doing is trying to blame it on my psychosis. I take Clancy's actions in contesting this as an admission that she was not insane at all.
NewNeo.com says that even if Clancy knew what she was doing was wrong, the insanity verdict might still be justified:
**That’s the more basic question with Clancy: she would not only have to have known right from wrong at the time (I think she probably did know right from wrong) but she would also have to have been able to “conform her conduct” to the law despite having a mental disease or defect. That last part is the real question: could she or couldn’t she conform her conduct to the law? In order for jurors to find that she could conform her conduct to the law, it would have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I think there clearly was reasonable doubt on that score, and/or it’s certainly understandable that someone could in good faith find reasonable doubt.**
I doubt that her killing the children was done to get back at the husband. She was in some hell of her own and may only have thought of him in so far as he was an obstacle to her plan. That would have made a great play, though.
Spiros writes, "These women likely presented their medical opinions as facts and unduly influenced the jury."
Nurses aren't entitled to medical opinions.
- dismiss criminal behavior -
That's the only Choice... uh, choice, that will ensure a crime-free world. No one is sane. Everyone is insane. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #AllsFairInLustAndAbortion
@ Big Mike That Clancy wss able to plan an effective course of action does not automatically make her sane.
The fact that she planned ahead, looked up information about her plans on the internet...did her research.....deliberately sent her husband away so he couldn't interrupt her plan to murder her children....shows that she knew that what she was doing was wrong. PRE MEDITATED murder.
You can be mentally ill...without being completely insane. It is nuanced, a sliding scale of sorts...... but true in many cases.
@Ice Nine: '...if he did in fact, as claimed by other jurors, acknowledge to them that he had reasonable doubt about her guilt but went on to vote guilty in spite of that, he in fact did something legally wrong in the sense of violating his duty as a juror as defined by the judge's standard instructions....'
First of all, this is hearsay, and the listener might have misheard something - 'he said', she said. Secondly, it doesn't matter what he said, it matters what he ultimately decided, and did. The fact of the deed stands by itself, stronger than words.
AND....even if you are insane.....that doesn't make you not guilty. You did it. You are guilty. PERIOD.
Now the question would be what is an appropriate punishment for the guilt and taking into consideration the mental conditions.
"Nurses aren't entitled to medical opinions."
Nurses are entitled to medical opinions the way teachers are entitled to assess your child's gender dysphoria. They've got them for 6 hours a day, that practically makes them THEIR CHILDREN after all dontchaknow.
Queaestor says that the Clancy jurors resembled the "to Kill a Mockingbird" jury.
i'd say that the REAL jury they resembled was the one that found the killers of Emmett Till not guilty by reason of racism.
These jurors wanted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of sexism
a Fun Thought, that many others have had before..
IF this was The Same Trial, with the Same Evidence, and The Same Jury..
BUT Clancy was a MAN... how long would they have taken to find him guilty?
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children." There was one father heart on the jury. There were no mother hearts. Note to prosecutor: 11 jurors sympathized with this monstrous woman because she had lost her children. You know, like the Menendez brothers are orphans.
"12 AWFL women."
The mistrial ruling was entirely sound, but the MA bar association needs to at least severely discipline Kevin Reddington. If he's allowed to get away with his plainly unethical attacks on the holdout, it could signal the end of the jury system in MA. Justice in that state will be better served by submitting the evidence to Grok than to 12 baked bean bigots.
Furthermore, the Plymouth County DA's office is in deep shit. Evidently none of its staff lawyers have the faintest notion as to what constitutes a competent and ethical voir dire process.
N.N. said..
"Mao, Hitler et al were, by expert consensus, clinically insane. "
Yes - and the modern left would excuse it all for the cracked eggs and luxury notion that all those innocent people deserved it.
>Aggie said...
@Ice Nine: '...if he did in fact, as claimed by other jurors, acknowledge to them that he had reasonable doubt about her guilt but went on to vote guilty in spite of that...'
First of all, this is hearsay, and the listener might have misheard something - 'he said', she said.<
Yeah, thanks, we all know that. Did you not notice the "if" in my statement?
>Secondly, it doesn't matter what he said, it matters what he ultimately decided, and did.<
Another obvious point from you. Indeed, it doesn't matter to the ultimate outcome. It matters very much to the point I made. Stay on target.
We have met the enemy and it is AWFL…
apparently, there were THREE nurses on the jury?
AND a school teacher?
AND the judge didn't sequester the jury?
so, WHO was working HARDEST to get Clancy found Not Guilty?
The prosecution? or the judge? certainly not the defence
My husband and I have been in wonderment about why every defendant in Massachusetts doesn't plead not guilty by reason of insanity, since "insanity" flips the burden of proof in that benighted state.
I'm with Yancey Ward, above: if I had killed my children while in the grip of either a delusion or despair, I cannot envision being able to face another day if my mental burden were ever lifted. And if I never did recover, then obviously I couldn't ever be allowed out in society.
What is the practical difference between judging her insane or sane.
If both sides agree she should never be released:
Incarceration in a prison Maine: $150,000 a year
Incarceration in a mental institution: $350,000 to $500,000 a year.
What exactly is the purpose of treating her mental condition?
Unless people are dishonest and what they are really arguing for is eventually setting free, there’s no practical reason for judging her insane . . . except for as a basis for launching a lot if lawsuits against a lot of drug companies.
I asked Grok what the settlements for the lawsuits that have already been filed with the medical institution will look like. These are undisclosed but low 8 figures would not be unreasonable.
Elsewhere online many are using the analogy of how the jury may have deliberated had Clancy killed *someone else's* kids and not her own in her "state" or whatever the fuck that was. Everyone knows it would've been a slam dunk.
The interesting differentiating factor and the one most emotionally and psychologically relevant to these harpies is that they were HER children, as in she owned them. That they believe the woman's right to her children somehow plenipotentiarily extends her special rights, similar to a "from her body, her choice" form of post-birth abortion.
Absolute disgust. This is directly causal of 80 years of mollycoddling the female id beast and cultural refusal to shame bad feminine behavior. Direct line, not even dotted.
Honestly, you can't trust anything you see or hear any more. What a life we live here in 2026. And - just think of the future we'll have.
Why would I deceive you?
"My husband and I have been in wonderment about why every defendant in Massachusetts doesn't plead not guilty by reason of insanity, since "insanity" flips the burden of proof in that benighted state."
I plead not guilty to detonating a claymore-armed drone above the pink-shirted AWFLs yerhonner. I was experiencing an emotional disturbance and the disembodied voice of G.K. Chesterton was telling me to do it so help me god.
“Leslie Graves said...
The prosecuting team gets a do-over. I wonder what they will try to do differently in the next go-around.”
Move to strike for cause any and all healthcare providers. Any medical information the jury receives should come only from experts whose expertise has been affirmed through the trial process.
This is an interesting read on how the prosecution totally screwed up their case presentation. It provides ideas on the more proper framing they could have used. https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/how-to-convict-lindsay-clancy
Strike for cause anything with a uterus or pretending to have one too.
Perhaps in the case of Mrs. Clancy it would have been preferable for The Village to have raised her children. Mark this day down: the one and only time in my life that I agreed with anything spouted by Hillary Clinton.
Dearest IamDevo, rest peacefully knowing that Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States, and that Clancy will be retried. I here predict that upon retrial, with less media coverage, she will be convicted.
This was not a minority report, not a color judgment, not class bigotry. She demonstrated an affirmative disposition to entertain abortive ideation for causes other than self-defense. She can never be trusted again.
Looking at the video confirms for me the following truism. You cannot do AWFL without doing smug.
Clancy, that is. Hillary will go the way of all flesh, eventually, although I suspect a necklace of garlic around her neck might be a good insurance policy.
"That last part is the real question: could she or couldn’t she conform her conduct to the law? In order for jurors to find that she could conform her conduct to the law, it would have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
She literally paused her killing spree to take a phone call from her husband.
RSM said..
".. most emotionally and psychologically relevant to these harpies is that they were HER children.."
of the Pro Clancy women.. HOW MANY are in the 25% of women that have already had AT LEAST ONE abortion?
If you've Already murdered at least one of YOUR kids, supporting a lady that murders HER kids seems more reasonable
- go the way of all flesh, eventually -
Entropy is the order in our neck of the woods.
Eva Marie said...
"..What is the practical difference between judging her insane or sane.
If both sides agree she should never be released.."
'never be released' and released in 6 months are NOT the same thing Eva
Been on two juries, served as foreman on one. People complaining about nurses trying to persuade with their toxicology knowledge are dead wrong. Logic, emotion, character (Aristotle’s big three of persuasion) are all fair game. Really, anything verbal goes inside that room. When I served as foreman the one holdout for acquittal was a nurse who belched out after eight hours of angry back and forth, “You want your guilty verdict?! Fine, I’ll give it to you. But I hope you can sleep.” Then she turned to me and said, “I thought I could trust you but you’re as bad as the rest of them.” When we read the verdict the defense called to poll us and each one said “Guilty” until it came to her (she was seventh in line). We waited with bated breath while she sat there like a stone for a good 30 seconds then spat out, “Guilty.” Par for the course and I think we did justice that day.
Duke Dan at 9:46 a.m:
That is an EXCELLENT piece by Holly Mathnerd on Substack. Thank you for posting that link!!
Well worth the read, and it outlines a different approach by the prosecutors that might turn out better in the event of a mistrial.
I’m not a lawyer (by training or profession). I’d really appreciate reactions to that Holly Mathnerd article from lawyers (currently or formerly) who are here at Althouse. And others, of course!
A popular conflation of planned parenthood with homicidal relief would pierce their ethical state, their moral relativity, their safe space, their warm and comfortable existence. A burden is a "burden" is a burden. His Choice? A progressive path and grade. Maybe, baby, not by popular consensus.
The WSJ's James Taranto coined the "Fox Butterfield Effect" to mock a series of articles the journalist Fox Butterfield wrote in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In those pieces, Butterfield repeatedly expressed puzzlement over the fact that crime rates were falling while prison populations were hitting record highs, inverting cause and effect.
This quote beats that misunderstanding by a country mile. I hereby claim the naming rights for this new craziness, and dub it "The Clancy," for ignoring reality entirely in favor of claimed victimhood. Contact me for licensing information on the term.
Hmm, comments are not allowed on the article at the NYT. I wonder if this is because they suspect there would be a lot of pushback against the Lindsay is innocent narrative, even from the left-wing commenters at the NYT? From what I've seen online almost everyone on the right and the center strongly support a Lindsay conviction, while the left is divided with the most vocal component supporting an acquittal and the other part trying to not publicly air their personal beliefs, which is also likely some sort of conviction, but instead talking about the importance of mental health and not wanting to upset the vocal people.
@Ice Nine, what I said is on target. What the juror may or may not have said doesn't matter.
If the Clancy case doesn't serve as a romantic watershed event for American men regarding American women then they're hopeless. Every American man is getting an unvarnished front row seat to a gorgonesque orchestra of spite-filled spoiled brats. Are you, American man, really going to argue with me about the percentages? You're actually going to roll dice or flip a coin? Really?
A better brochure for passport-broism you couldn't produce. I was ahead of the curve as the Army let me see a world filled with women from cultures that still believed in being feminine, ethical, affectionate, supportive, nurturing, and most important appreciative. Even before I met my wife it became impossible to see American women the way their marketing tries hard to portray them. They've become anything but.
The evidence is staring American dudes in the face with homicidal sanpaku eyes. Don't walk away from American women young man. Run. Fast as you can.
"not wanting to upset the vocal people."
Well... those "vocal people" have come down on the side of "hormonal imbalance is a get-out-of-jail-free card for acts up to and including filicide," so not upsetting them might be simple prudence.
...she said snarkily. A woman I'm very close to recently expressed her belief, fueled by a thousand TikToks, that the husband did it. This woman absolutely would not and does not "support" child murder by reason of poorly regulated hormones* - she's just been led down the garden path and presented with a scenario that she finds more palatable than "Lindsay Clancy did a monstrous thing, no matter how you look at it." I suspect that's the basis of MOST of her support: a mother killing her three children, with her HANDS, no less, not driving off a bridge with them in the car as has also been done, is so unthinkable to many women that they'll cling to any explanation that removes agency from the murderer.
* Hannah Spier, a Norwegian? psychiatrist on Substack whose topic is Cluster B personalities and how to avoid getting mixed up with them, points out that "postpartum psychosis" didn't enter the chat until the trial. Clancy was never diagnosed with nor treated for it, she says; her diagnosis and treatment were for generalized anxiety disorder. I haven't confirmed this myself
Spier opines that the media angle on this case is just more normalization of (some) women's terrible behavior..
@gilbar: That was my point. People SAY she won’t be released but they are dishonest when they day that because they are counting on her being set free at some point. Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
“I'm very glad these three women have spoken out. The rest of the country can now see what a threat to the Republic these liberal white women are.
These are the same people who hate Trump with a passion.
We will never have common ground with these people.”
They will be administering your meds in hospital. ;)
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."
Yeah, I'd have a problem with that too.
Of course, the Ex-Wives Club of jurors go blab to the media.
Once you justify abortion, the next step is how far along in the pregnancy is abortion allowable. Once that decision reaches abortion until birth, the next step is infanticide, which we have here. Where the hell are we going?
Odd how none of the leftist commentators are here defending their ideals of "kill a child anytime, it's all good!" that Clancy displayed. And these jurors clearly share.
"Where the hell are we going?"
I don't know about "we", but "they" appear to be trying for a return to burnt child offerings to tanit at a newly rebuilt and modernized American hybrid version of the ancient carthaginian tophets.
No wonder the Romans salted the fucking place. We may have to resort to Cobalt-60 to ensure the message gets through this time around.
Using the killer's first name is a tell.
It's like a jury member talking about "Charlie" instead of "Manson."
We have a daughter and DIL who are both RNs and they don’t share these views. We have to remember, these jurors are Mass*holes.
Even Charles Manson had to draw a line at some point.
'The prosecuting team gets a do-over. I wonder what they will try to do differently in the next go-around'
I will be surprised if she is retried. I suspect a plea agreement will be reached that makes it possible for her to get out free inside of 10 years.
I also have one other prediction- the husband will eventually be charged with some sort of manslaughter as a cover for the prosecution's malfeasance.
The Return of Witchcraft, part 1
We Paid Some Etsy Witches To Curse Charlie Kirk
- normalization of (some) women's terrible behavior.-
Exactly. Emphasis on "some". This is not a minority report. Whether by origin or expression, this woman... person has demonstrated a disposition to not only entertain abortive ideation, but to take affirmative action for causes other than self-defense. She can never be trusted again. She is incompatible with civilized society and must be sequestered.
The future looks like it's going to get really hard not getting extrajudicial. I see jury nullification in both senses abounding. If that's the only recourse left to fix things that's sad, but fix things it will.
"information that nurses on the jury provided"
I have served on enough juries to know that you're supposed to make your decision based only on information provided during the trial, not information from other jurors. Obviously, you can listen to their personal perspectives, but you can't accept facts that they present with the same authority as the facts presented in the case.
I was on a hung jury once and it was no fun. You get a lot of pressure from the opposing jurors who believe that their life experience is more valid than yours when it comes to making the decision. But you have to vote the way that you feel is correct. That's the way the system works. And there is a definite possibility that their life experience is blinding them to something that you can actually see.
Also, a mistrial is an example of something that looks bad but is actually good. There is a possibility that something went wrong with either the prosecution or defense (or both) that led to a mistrial. This gives both sides a chance to reassess their positions and try and make sure that their cases are actually presented the way they want them to be.
Kirk was murdered a couple of days after that magazine put that hit piece out. Similar to the Ayatollah calling for Salmon Rushdie to be murdered. You're praying to Satan. There's no other word for it. Claiming it was "humorous" is not much of an excuse. It's like that comedian who held up Trump's severed head. Humor allows us to say what we're really thinking. Humor shows the world our dark heart.
Jezebel removes article. (They've brought it back).
Saint Croix said, "We Paid Some Etsy Witches To Curse Charlie Kirk"
---------------------------------------------------------
Not all but for some women and even fewer men I think they really feel that if they believe something hard enough or utter the appropriate incantations they can make it reality. The George Costanza rationalization. No one sane believes this but the female willingness to ostracize and exclude is one of the few strengths they possess in a hostile world where they're comparatively weak stacked up next to everything.
Then you've got the genetic proof that throughout history there's always been some weak guy capable of passing on his genes by doing as proxy what a woman couldn't or wouldn't do, and bang, you've got some physical proof that what appears to be blatantly insane has and may still be working.
Charlie Kirk was murdered by a furry loving reject. Correlation is not causation but in the minds of many they're certain it worked, and that's good enough for them.
I didnt follow the case. But the mother has such evil eyes to me. No way I could sleep with her around.
Here is video of the Judges instruction on reasonable doubt.
If the requirement of the prosecution in Massachusetts is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person was sane and understood the wrongness of their actions at the moment of those actions and the definition of reasonable doubt means "the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs" then the requirement is practically impossible to meet.
I disagree with the definition. It moves the goalposts from reasonable doubt to near absolute certainty.
The prosecution failed to do the impossible. Bad law.
Who would your rather have babysit your children?
At least the "nice Austrian painter man" would do arts and crafts with them. It's a compelling resume.
Two things caused this result: 1. jury selection. I obviously wasn't there, but it appears the State did a horrible job. 2. the failure to sequester the jury. Every trial lawyer knows that the jury is going to go home and google your client or incident that resulted in the case. In addition to that in this case the jury walked through a sea of unhinged Clancy supports every single day. The lone hold out should get a medal.
"The prosecution failed to do the impossible."
Women often demand the impossible. And btw, what has the prosecution done for them lately? Doesn't the prosecution love them? The prosecution didn't even notice their new haircut!
Duke Dan and Rcommal--I agree that the HollyMathnerd piece is excellent. I did not follow the trial and was unaware that the only time that Lindsay Clancy ever claims to have "heard voices" was when she killed the children. That for me is absolutely damning.
But at a more practical level the "perfectionist/failure" narrative provides a coherent and believable explanation for the undeniably monstrous behavior of the former loving mother--which does not run into the catch-22 of psychosis.
I suspect that the prosecution had a hard time believing that any jury would sympathize with Clancy in light of the facts at hand, and therefore didn't develop the psychiatric/emotional narrative as hollymathnerd recommends (after the fact, of course).
Did hollymathnerd mention her psychological hypothesis and recommendations on her blog during the trial (which she said that she followed fully and completely)? Hindsight is always 20/20.
That said, if Mass returns to the witch burning days* I'd be glad to strike the match on those three.
*I know they hung them instead. They weren't monsters!
"RideSpaceMountain said...
If the Clancy case doesn't serve as a romantic watershed event for American men regarding American women then they're hopeless."
LOL. You forget about Hillary's loss to trump? Crazy,man, crazy! This trial small potatoes compared to women's reaction then.
@FullMoon, if these bitches are witches, then America's ex-wife was the high priestess of the coven. It was her turn hex it!
Can I consider my own knowledge while deliberating, even though I am an unsworn witness? Suppose I am pretty knowledgeable about medicine or finance or firearms. As I deliberate, am I required to leave that knowledge outside of the jury room? It certainly sounds as though I can’t try to persuade others based upon my knowledge, but what is my ethical obligation wrt my own decision making?
Isn't it more accurate to say ...
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children." And also confirmed it?
Was not her confession admitted into exhibits?
“LOL. You forget about Hillary's loss to trump? Crazy,man, crazy! This trial small potatoes compared to women's reaction then.”
Tears… anguish… Total Verklemption!!!
I’ve had three thoughts since my comment at 8:51. The first is that IANAL and I’d like someone who understands Massachusetts law to read the exegesis I’ve embedded and tell me whether it’s more or less right. Thank you in advance.
Second, most of the commentators I’ve read seem to believe something along the lines of insanity being a binary sort of thing. You’re sane or you’re not. But in the real world there are different ways to be insane, and different degrees. So we get back to the question of whether Clancy understood that she was doing something wrong. And I assert that she must have known that murdering her children was wrong.
Third, after looking at the video I have a legitimate fesr for the safety of any minor children living with any of the 9 women who were on that jury. Any minor children need to be removed from the care of these women immediately for their safety.
Middle Coast, my understanding as w non-lawyer is that you can use it to evaluate the testimony but you can't express it to other jurors in such a way that adds to the testimony given at trial, i.e. you can't cross-examine the record as if you were an attorney questioning a witness. I think you could certainly use your background to highlight parts of the record you think are critical or point out critical rebuttals but you can't offer information or rebuttals that weren't covered at trial.
Not patting myself on the back here. It seems obvious. But the fact that these nurses think that they are vetted experts another juror should have deferred to is retarded. Unfortunately for the sad people that are mad a juror stuck to his guns, that's the system and his ability to force a hung jury is a feature, not a bug. That jury wanted to acquit, I guess, but he wanted to nullify. It's not exactly nullification, but he was empaneled and he gets to be part of the magic. How about we not feel so bad for a lady that strangled her three children. Would've saved a lot of trouble if the life-saving efforts necessary to save her after she tried offing herself had been less effective. That's cynical and harsh, but so is this fucking world we live in where people now feel sorry for someone who stangled her own children.
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that she viciously killed her children." If anything good came out of this trial, it’s that quote. It distills the horror. It’s chilling that it’s said as a criticism.
She viciously killed her children, but the law requires us to acquit with treatment until she's rehabilitated then released into the general population. A preemptive statement for an insanity plea, a governor's pardon, perhaps. How Covidient. A real Gosnellian rationalization of a revealed disposition to entertain abortive ideation and take affirmative action. We need reasonable apologies and appeals to authority.
Trump got 44% of the 2024 vote in Plymouth County Massachusetts. These jurors, including the nurses, were about as likely to be MAGA or MAHA as liberals.
Christopher B. What you wrote is consistent with something I just read. I can use my own specialized knowledge to reach a decision but I can’t tell others about that knowledge. Tx.
From X via Instapundit:
“OutspokenSamantha
@Outspoken_Sam
·
Follow
The more the Lindsay Clancy jurors talk, the better they make the holdout look.”
You can understand these bints better by literally paraphrasing "The Narcissist’s Creed" by Dayna Craig:
It didn’t happen like that
And if she did, she wasn’t that bad
And if she was, it's whole different deal
And if it wasn't, it wasn't really her fault
And if it was, she didn’t really mean it
And if she did, he deserved it
I was shocked the holdout was a man. I've been in a jury room and know the sort of pressure can be applied to a holdout. Of course, I was on the side applying the pressure. But still.
Anyway, if i'd been on the jury and 9 women thought it was OK for a mother to kill her 3 kids because of "insanity" - I probably would've just gone along. They'd know better than I. What do I know about childbirth and post-whatever it is depression.
I'm still torn by the case. I can see both sides.
The problem I have - and i have this with a lot of insanity pleas - is if you're truly insane you don't plan a murder. Or think of ways not to get caught. You just do it. Why? Because you're crazy.
Just because you take some drug, doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong.
This woman should never be allowed to have kids, even adopted ones. And when she gets old, she can look at little kids on the playground and think "These could've been my grandkids. If I hadn't murdered my children".
*Don't walk away from American women young man. Run. Fast as you can.*
The Guess Who has entered the chat ....
This sentence in the NYT article is dumbfounding:
"[T]he prosecution presented a lot of medical experts but no witnesses that said Ms. Clancy was a bad mother, a factor that weighed heavily with the three women."
*These jurors, including the nurses, were about as likely to be MAGA or MAHA as liberals.*
Riiiiight. Because if MAGA is known for one thing, it's dressing up in pink outfits to support a woman who murdered her three kids.
God, you people are so fucking boring. Adios.
Hey, boatbuilder:
Thanks for the feedback. I think the article linked by Duke Dan can stand by itself, but you ask a good question. I'm pretty tied up today and tomorrow, but I have started going through her older posts to see if she's written on the Clancy trial before. So far, I have found one from mid-August, though I have not yet had time to read it.
When and as I get a chance, I'll compile a list of links if there's more than the other one I've found so far, and, I guess, post them in an open thread or something. I think I see you pretty regularly in open threads? Posts tend to "age out" pretty quickly on blogs.
I had not been aware of Holly Mathnerd before, although I do read Substack writers pretty frequently, but I did go ahead and follow her and probably will subscribe. So, thanks to Duke Dan for bringing her to my attention.
On a brighter note...
>RCOCEAN II said...
God, you people are so fucking boring. Adios.<
rcommal-thanks for responding.
You know where to find me. I'm sort of addicted to the blog.
My favorite witch story is the one where they tried to put a curse on Trump (multiple curses on Trump) and they had to report back that "there is some force protecting him."
and also, of course, "no refunds"
The mix of medications made her do it - that’s a MAHA defense.
@RC Ocean - I have often suggested a right to abortion to abortion until the 57th trimester. Clancy effectively did one at the 18th trimester. And you would have gone along with that because women know more about childbirth. Do we know all or any of the women on the jury have kids? Would you expect a woman to defer to the opinion of the men on a jury in a rape case because she doesn't have a penis or testosterone?
A 9-woman, 3-man jury in Massachusetts is unlikely to be MAGA, even in Plymouth County. The gender imbalance makes that so. The lone holdout aside, nobody was willing to challenge the consensus represented by the three jurors who've already come forward.
***
These jurors, including the nurses, were about as likely to be MAGA or MAHA as liberals.
***
You clearly know nothing what-so-fucking-ever about nurses. No other major profession, not even teachers, is more likely to be a communist heap of shit.
I watched some of it. I doubt it would have mattered to that jury, but the DAs did a very terrible job interviewing the husband. They fiddled with exhibits, completely muddled the medications topic, and left him sitting there up on the stand for long periods of time looking utterly drained of life and unsympathetic, even as he was likely struggling like hell just to hold it together. They didn't humanize his testimony. Their presentation actually made him look bad, though nothing he actually said even hints at him doing anything but trying desperately to help his wife and kids. They had plenty to work with, but they just didn't do their job. Like it or not, these subjective performances matter. And the judge should have never let the jurors misbehave and pull activist stunts in the courtroom. What a mess. Nutty or not, Nancy Grace was one hell of a prosecutor, and she would have done the job right. Her commentary is scathing.
Euripides’ Medea is an excellent example of women who kill their children in order to punish the husband. Medea is the wronged woman and the Chorus is sympathetic and they justify that Medea could kill her husband Jason and the Gods would call it justice. The horror comes from the Nurse's slow realization that Medea sees killing him as weak revenge, why should he go to the afterworld, instead he should live with the pain of seeing their children brutally destroyed. Medea is not crazy, she is calculating and even in her screams before she does the deed---she would still take back her husband if possible. In the finale Medea uses her black magic to escape in a chariot drawn by flying dragons, while Jason weeps and curses. We may yet see dragons in the sky above Boston.
I have yet to hear anything that is not normal jury room dynamics. I have served on a couple, including one for a murder trial in which we went to a guilty verdict. The very vocabulary that this juror uses -- viciously -- strongly suggests she was not minimizing Clancy's crime.
I think the 11-1 vote surprised quite a few people on this forum. BagoH2o reminded us in another post that it takes all 12 -- yes, of course it does and thus there was no verdict and Clancy remains vulnerable to another trial. But the people who saw everything up close voted 11-1 for the idea that her capacity was so diminished that she was not in a sane state of mind. And those drugs can do it to you. I have seen it, although not ending in murder. But wild extremes of behavior -- most definitely.
Kai: it's all about voir dire. The prosecutors did an awful job making their case.
I can be automatically struck (not losing points) from a jury because I am the victim of a serious crime. Why isn't my extensive experience the same as a nurse or a lawyer, let alone any consideration that, under questioning, I could be fair and objective? I am a non-person in the eyes of the law. I cannot claim discrimination like racial minorities. The whole jury selection process is sick and perverse, and it determines the outcome of the trial.
That has to change, among other things that you point out, but how much of this case have you watched? I think you did not see the strenght of the evidence. The prosecutors did a terrible job. A retrial is necessary. That's all.
And lucky you for being a whole person who can sit on juries. I am automatically a lesser person in the eyes of the law than you are, with no recourse, at no fault.
Enjoy your success, as some say. If you really cared about justice, you would put a modicum of work into trying to fix the system that excludes me and respects you. I'm not a person because somebody did something - to me, and I have no recourse.
Mag-post ng isang Komento
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.