The NYT reports on the impending declaration of a mistrial.
The day of intense courtroom drama was prompted by a message to the judge on Thursday from the jury’s foreperson. It said a lone holdout juror had acknowledged doubt about the case, but refused to follow the law. The note came on the sixth day of deliberations. Ms. Clancy’s lead lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said the foreperson indicated that the jury was split 11 to 1, with the majority ready to find his client not guilty.
UPDATE: Mistrial declared.
Mga Post
35 komento:
The defense is in favor of a ticker tape parade.
Wasn’t the “acknowledged doubt” narrative about the lone juror manufactured by the defense?
What I want to know is whether the “male voice” that told Clancy to kill her children had a Boston accent.
firefox
...I haven't been hanging on the news out of the trial, feeling observation quickly becomes spectacle out of tragedy. It was disturbing whatever strategy the defense was using around leaks, real or invented and pink shirt women, astroturfed or not. All a bit unsavory...
triumph of feminism. What is going to happen is this...normal people watching criminals go free, and making money, and being celebrated, will finally decide enough. the American legal system is done. people will soon do what is necessary to maintain society.
This poor hold out will soon be identified and hounded for the rest of his life. Avoid jury duty at all costs my friends.
Reddington needs to be disbarred. He is leading the lynching party after the one juror who wouldn't bend to his BS.
One would almost come to suspect that only white men can be held accountable for their actions. Full rights of citizenship without accountability would seem a poor strategy for a society in the long run. Maybe some of the upgrades to the Republic need to be reconsidered.
It was 11-1 for not guilty and even the 1 is questionable. How could that be? All the best people on Althouse knew Clancy was guilty. Whether they knew anything about the case, the medicine, or anything else. Those 11 jurors must not have been listening to the testimony.
Where's Nancy Grace when you need her? Admittedly, I don't have cable tv.
** Kai Akker said...All the best people on Althouse knew Clancy was guilty.**
Clancy’s admission of guilt might have something to do with it.
I’m trying to withhold judgment until someone writes a sober analysis. The public evidence makes insanity very hard to support—she showed every sign of understanding her actions. And yet apparently it was 11-1 for acquittal. (Though the claim that the 1 was questionable is vicious nonsense from a defense lawyer who desperately needs to be hauled before an ethics committee and possibly jailed himself.)
Massachusetts is weird about insanity. In every other state, the burden is on the defense to prove insanity. In Mass, the burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killer is sane.
If juries followed the law all the time in Mass, nobody would be convicted in the face of an insanity plea.
The Law Is Inadequate to Judge Lindsay Clancy
One Angry Man
the burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killer is sane. .....
Don't that mean majority jury saying Madame Clancy -insane-
The longhouse has spoken
“ Don't that mean majority jury saying Madame Clancy -insane-”
Were they claiming insanity, because my understanding was reasonable doubt to guilty? As noted above, it would help to have balanced reporting, but too many want a wedge issue heading into an election.
Doubt v. REASONABLE doubt
Wait. Now you can be investigated for the way you vote on a jury? This is intimidation.
Hello, Cebu City!
Comments working?
Reddington presented what was essentially a MAHA insanity defense, arguing that the cause of Lindsay Clancy’s compulsion to kill her children and herself was the uncoordinated mix of medications prescribed by different mental health providers.
Confusing article. In an insanity case, the burden of proof switches to the defendant. The DA proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy killed her children. Clancy then countered with her insanity defense. I take it that the lone juror was not convinced. Shame on the defense lawyer for going after the juror!
Feminism has reached its apogee in Massachusetts. Not only is it legal in that state to abort a baby while it is in the act of being born alive, but 11 members of a jury have decided that a womsn can kill her live children at least up to age 5.
This is the great victory of feminism — killing the weak and defenseless and murdering helpless children. I’m sure that everyone working for MS magazine is just SO PROUD.
And we already have our first copycat killer in Frankfort, Illinois. A woman named Corie Walsh, described as an obsessive Lindsay Clancy supporter, strangled her 2 year old son and then attempted, apparently half-heartedly, to kill herself with a knife in an upstairs bathroom. As evidence of her fake insanity she insisted her little child was the “antichrist.”
Feminists must be SO PROUD this morning.
The murderer doesn’t deserve a single day of freedom; but since her botched suicide crippled her the taxpayers would be on the hook for her care for if she were convicted.
No one believes she is currently suffering from postpartum psychosis, so a not guilty verdict should result in her immediately going free, right?
I am pretty sure that the holdout was one of the 4 guys on the jury, and not one of the 8 women.
Saw an article last week on the effects of testosterone. It makes you more independent, and, in particular, more resistant to (esp female) peer pressure. And, very likely, the women on the jury were trying to enforce solidarity with their female group think by outing the single holdout. How dare he? They were surrounded by a sea of feminists whenever they came or went to the courthouse. So, what was probably affecting the independence of the jury the most was that sea of feminists condoning mass murder. One juror wanted to impose stand American morality, and so had to be destroyed.
Typical female logic. If we can’t win on the merits, we will win by cheating, because the cause is just. Except for the bulk of the populace, who think the defendant to be a murderer. And we have already seen a me-too copycat crime, where a mother hung her kid in their garage.
Except for in MA, where the burden remains on the prosecution.
It’s like the Catch 22. If you don’t want to fly the dangerous mission you are Sane, and therefore don’t get a discharge for insanity, but backwards for baby killing. Everyone who kills someone is insane, so no one is ever guilty of murder, even if you are a mob hit man, you are still insane to be one.
Tim Maguire, your rhetorical dodge tells me you feel awkward about whatever preconception you might have held. We know "guilty" has a number of possible meanings, in this case especially; and my usage was the obvious relevant meaning of this trial.
If anything comes out of it, I hope it will be a closer examination of the promiscuous prescription of anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medications. If you are contemplating taking a Klonopin, you should think five times about it first. You may be making your situation much worse in fairly short order. And Clancy was prescribed another dozen mindbenders besides that one.
The medical industry hates to admit how much they don't know. But they definitely do not know how the brain works well enough to be able to predict the outcomes for the individual patients for whom they are prescribing these drugs.
As for the Clancys, life has moved on rapidly. There are still some who are sure Lindsay is going to stand up and walk any day now. But the prosecution's case included the howler that she was disappointed with her life and her controlling nature caused her to kill her children and then jump out the window and paralyze herself.
As my sister-in-law would say, "Hel - LLLOOOOO!"
--- but too many want a wedge issue heading into an election. [Leland]
Yeah, that must be it.
--- very likely, the women on the jury were trying to enforce solidarity with their female group think by outing the single holdout. How dare he? They were surrounded by a sea of feminists whenever they came or went to the courthouse. So, what was probably affecting the independence of the jury the most was that sea of feminists condoning mass murder. One juror wanted to impose stand American morality, and so had to be destroyed. [Bruce Hayden]
OMG, people! Rethink your certainties and prejudices!
Eleven jurors of both genders heard that testimony every day and agreed. One admitted to doubts on the prosecution but would not listen to "reasonable-doubt" instructions. To the extent that the jury foreman notified the judge.
But, sure, he (?) was holding out for the salvation of western civilization.
To the medication defense:
If an alcoholic man drank into a stupor and then killed 3 people driving home. I don't think the alcohol or his alcoholism would get him an acquittal. If an alcoholic woman? I don't know.
At least the alcoholic was not trying to kill anyone, especially via planning and slow one by one execution.
While some have been acquitted of DUI homicide, the successful defense has never been that they were too impaired to drive. Just the opposite, some were acquitted because their impairment was not proven, so the drinking could not be used against them. It 's never a successful defense to blame that drug.
Kai, you suggest that the 11 acquittal jurors where correct because they are the jurors and they heard the evidence, but the jury system itself doesn't believe that, which is why there are 12 jurors and not just a couple, and also why they must be unanimous. The system expects some jurors to get it wrong and hopes there are other to counter it. Being on the jury does not make you infallible. O.J. killed two people.
More importantly, all the women outside supporting her did not hear the evidence, but were sure of her innocence, most immediately upon hearing nothing more than a woman felt bad and killed her kids.
“it will be a closer examination of the promiscuous prescription”
She went doctor shopping and then didn’t take the drugs. It was testimony in the trial. Did you miss it?
“The medical industry hates to admit how much they don't know.”
Unlike you who knows everything. How’s your short going?
I didn't follow the case. Too grotesque for me.
Her defense centered on her poor mental health treatment. However no psychiatrist can ever know what anyone is going to do or can control them. People with no criminal history who are suicidal/homicidal are difficult cases. Nick Reiner, for example, had the finest rehab and psychological treatment for many years which any amount of money could buy. He still ended up murdering his parents. There are no guarantees as we all know.
When I read about the Clancy case on chatgpt I was struck by two facts: that she had sent her husband out and engaged him on the phone while she was organizing executing the crime. That calculation shows she was in control of herself, the murders were premeditated. OTOH she didn't effectively plan her own suicide. That makes me doubt that she was fully rational. That's not much of a defense imo.
Defending the actions of a woman who (premedidatedly, no less) strangled her children isn't a good look, Kai.
But, you do you.
I see a couple comments addressed to me. Dunno if anyone will be coming back to this post. The "copycat" case can probably keep many busy with their forecasts of doom and damnation caused by anyone who doesn't agree with them. Over 200 comments so far.
@bagoh2o -- The Clancy case is very different from an alcoholic driving recklessly and killing. It isn't just the drugs that make this case unlike the scenario you described -- it's also how much she attacked herself. A woman who kills her children and tries pretty seriously to kill herself is not acting with anything that I would consider premeditation.
Oh, she may have meditated on it for a couple months. But she has no history of harming anyone, or behaving recklessly, that I am aware of. What she ended up doing, after telling her mother that she was no longer herself and that she had lost her old self permanently -- one of the most revealing facts in this case, for me -- what she ended up doing was trying to obliterate herself from the human race and life of any form. She killed her offspring. She tried to kill herself and only half succeeded.
That these are the choices and behaviors of an evil mastermind who worked out a devious plan does not cover this accurately, IMO. And that 11-1 near-verdict from the people who saw her and heard all about her shows it did not cover the situation accurately for them, either.
For those on this board who condemn her and see in her a symbol of deteriorating western civilization, I think you are in error. The medical "experts" with the credentials who kept prescribing ever-more and ever-different mindbenders for her.... well, they would be my candidate for our social destruction and one which we need to address. Covid already showed us some of this. They do not know anywhere near as much as they think they do. But they are sure ready to condemn anyone who differs in his views.
Those who say an acquittal in this trial would have let Clancy go scot-free -- this woman will never live a day scot-free for the rest of her life. Which I tend to doubt will reach its natural ending; but who's to say.
The third child may have overloaded Lindsay's mental and emotional capacities to a dangerous point. That's my guess as to how this awful cycle came into being. She coped, and she seemed happy to her mother, but it wasn't long before she was overwhelmed. Perhaps she needed the autonomy and security of her job and its space that was hers and just hers..... and then she couldn't go back to them. Her mind and emotions continued to eat up the former Lindsay Clancy and she tried to escape that, but failed. She was somehow driven to believe there was only one way out. That she contrived to take it.....
That's not a person acting rationally, premeditatedly, and sanely; not in my book. Maybe there is a better purpose for the rest of her life than we are imagining right now. In any event, I personally could not throw the switch on her. Let Leland do it.
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.