https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdVSVMfMb02/?stkn=Z3liZHBmMWlsMWc1
How can a triple murderer be a hero?
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19TNrAtiDw/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdVSVMfMb02/?stkn=Z3liZHBmMWlsMWc1
How can a triple murderer be a hero?
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19TNrAtiDw/?mibextid=wwXIfr
36 comments:
Do you consider the bombers who dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be heroes even though they killed hundreds of thousands of innocents?
Just checking. I thought you might be able to answer your own question.
I didn't look at your little link because, frankly, I've grown tired of you just posting stuff from who knows where. I'm guessing this might be about the mother who killed her children and that's a case I haven't looked at closely so I have no position. But I suspect that you regularly think that some people who kill innocent people are heroes of a sort. You tell me.
Dan
Let's start with this, before I answer your question.
Do you consider Lindsey Clancy to be a hero?
Do you think that the thousands of people who do consider her a hero are wrong to do so?
Of course you didn't look at the link, because you seem much more comfortable making comments based out of ignorance and posting comments which are off topic and have no relationship to the post.
"Do you consider the bombers who dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be heroes even though they killed hundreds of thousands of innocents?"
As a general rule, I consider anyone who got into an aircraft, flew incredibly long missions at significant risk to themselves, and did their duty in order to end the aggressive, oppressive, evil, empire of Japan to be heroes to some degree. Anyone who is willing to risk or sacrifice their life for the greater good could be considered a hero to some degree.
Can anyone who supports or participates in a war which resulted in unimaginable suffering, really be considered "innocent"?
Why is this the only action of WW2 which drives you to this level of getting your panties in a wad?
Your commitment to ignorance about the Clancy trial, as well as WW2 should probably make you consider stopping your comments about things you aren't motivated enough to inform yourself about.
Do you consider the black juror who was the lone holdout in the Clancy trial to be a hero for sticking with his deeply held principles?
Do you consider the TV news outlet which released (potentially violating MA law) personal information about the holdout juror to be heroes and "real journalists"?
Do you not consider a mother who planned and brutally killed her three small children to be an evil human being?
Do you consider the killing of these children, by their mother, to simply be her choice because getting rid of the children made her life more convenient?
Craig:
And your other questions as well: I was quite clear that I'm not deeply familiar with the details in this case. I AM quite familiar with our wholesale slaughter of innocents in war times and our extrajudicial murders in current NON-war times. I'll pass on answering questions about a case I'm not familiar with. Perhaps unlike you, I have a busy life and am not fully up to date on every news story possible and I won't apologize for that.
But we can see you making the case for calling mass killers at a far greater level and who presumably were not mentally impaired to be heroes. So, clearly, YOU think sometimes mass killers (during war time, at least, but perhaps also at peace time, in the extrajudicial killings of hundreds of presumably innocent people under this administration!) CAN be heroes. Am I mistaking what you've said?
I will say this about mental illness and crimes, in general:
There are absolutely some people who should not be held fully accountable for crimes committed while suffering from a specific set of mental illnesses. They should be held accountable at some degree, but not fully. It would be similar to the person in a wheelchair who "refuses" to climb some stairs to save a person about to fall - they shouldn't be held accountable for not doing something they weren't capable of doing, because, of course.
Mental illness is real and has real impacts. Any criminal judgments needs to take that into account.
Do you disagree with that principle? Are you educated on the impacts of mental illness?
This might seem crazy, but maybe you should refrain from commenting on posts where you aren't interested in informing yourself what the post is about. Further, I don't particularly care what you like or dislike about how I choose to fill my blog. When possible I copy/paste the text along with the link.
In this case, the link goes to a video and I haven't figured out a way to copy/paste videos to Blogger. Whether IG, X, or YouTube, links are generally the best way for me to post videos. Not to mention the potential for copyright issues.
If, however, you continue to comment on things you are willfully ignorant about you probably shouldn't expect me to take you particularly seriously.
That you've chosen to be ignorant of the Clancy trial which is/was ubiquitous on the news and social media seems to indicate that you've intentionally chosen ignorance.
Obviously, it's your choice to be ignorant. It's not a good look for you.
THIS question, I CAN answer, because of the principle involved, regardless of the specifics of the situation:
Do you consider the killing of these children, by their mother, to simply be her choice because getting rid of the children made her life more convenient?
NO. Absolutely not, no way at ALL is that any mother's "choice," for ANY reason to simply kill her children (OR ANYONE ELSE'S CHILDREN).
Can you agree to that amazing simple-to-answer question with only ONE obvious moral answer?
I'm guessing you can't, given your presumed allegiance to national killers who are killing innocent people overseas, but you tell me.
This mother - whatever the circumstances - needs to be held to account at SOME level for the awful actions she took, which actions can only be described as horrible.
How about this question and principle: Would you suggest that an intellectually disabled individual who didn't understand heat and boiling water was guilty of legal assault if they poured/spilled boiling water on a person nearby? OR do you recognize that not everyone has full moral capacity if they have some deficits?
You don't need a specific instance to deal with the principle and that's what I'm willing to do.
One last question: Were you part of the jury in this case and informed of all the specifics of her alleged mental state at the time of her misdeeds? Are you informed on the specific testimonies of mental health workers who presumably testified?
Do you feel like you're in a position to decide medical advice without the testimony of medical experts? OR, do you defer to expert opinion?
To see you reveling in your choice of ignorance and your poor excuses for not answering the questions speaks volumes.
Are you familiar and engaged with the the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents in abortion clinics every year. Are you familiar and engaged with the wholesale rape of over 250,000 women in the UK over the last couple of decades or the massive uptick in rapes in Europe in general over recent years? How about the hundreds of millions dead as a result of communist governments since 1950? I can't imagine that you are not, yet you choose to single out ONE example which ended WW2 in the Pacific and stopped the horrors unleashed by the Empire of Japan. By all means, let's look at the deaths caused by Japan as they attempted to conquer the entire Pacific basin and compare.
It's hilarious that you offer such a poor excuse for your ignorance of one of the biggest news stories of the last 60-90 days.
"But we can see you making the case for calling mass killers at a far greater level and who presumably were not mentally impaired to be heroes."
Except that I'm not. But don't let that stop you from making shit up. This is where your ignorance really makes it hard to take your seriously, as the evidence presented at trial did not show that Clancy was "mentally impaired" . You've lazily chosen to push a false narrative because you are too lazy to inform yourself and choose to comment from your ignorance.
"Am I mistaking what you've said?"
Yes, but that's not a surprise.
"Do you disagree with that principle?"
It's such a vague and non specific principle that it's hard to agree or disagree. I'll say that evidence of mental illness should absolutely be presented at trial and considered when it comes to sentencing. NGRI, should not be an option without mandatory lengthy hospitalization before release.
"Are you educated on the impacts of mental illness?"
Yes. Not to mention fairly extensive experience of family members who've had significant mental health issues.
I'd suggest that you should really consider whether or not it is in your best interest to stop commenting out of your intentional ignorance (except you've somehow managed to imbibe the defense narrative and regurgitate it).
I'm sure you'll start complaining that I haven't answered your questions, despite the fact that I have.
"NO. Absolutely not, ..."
Well, at least you do draw the line somewhere. Unlike her rabid supporters who are absolutely making the argument that she was justified in the premeditated murder of her children.
"Can you agree to that amazing simple-to-answer question with only ONE obvious moral answer?"
If we weren't seeing thousands of people protesting and financially supporting Clancy I'd probably agree with you. Unfortunately, there is a massive amount of evidence that thousands of people do not agree with your "obvious moral answer". Again, this is what commenting out of ignorance gets you,
It's funny, when you ask a question, then answer it yourself.
"This mother - whatever the circumstances - needs to be held to account at SOME level for the awful actions she took, which actions can only be described as horrible."
By all means, define "some level" of accountability? What is appropriate for premeditated murder? What is appropriate for someone who strangled three children, one after another?
If this hypothetical person planned, and executed, this boiling water attack then they absolutely should be held accountable for the battery and the harm that resulted.
We're talking about LEGAL responsibility, not moral responsibility. Trials are intended to find fact as relates to what is legal. Moral isn't a consideration.
Again, your ignorance isn't helping.
No, yet I am aware of what evidence was presented and have seen much of the testimony. Especially the testimony of mental health professionals who found no reason to diagnose her with anything. Yes, I am. I've seen the video and the transcripts.
The problem is that you are not and your just parroting BS that you've heard ad blindly accepted out of ignorance.
No, I AM taking the testimony of the medical experts who testified seriously.
Craig:
maybe you should refrain from commenting on posts where you aren't interested in informing yourself what the post is about.
I wasn't commenting on your post, precisely because I was not familiar with your little link. Rather, I asked you a question salient to YOUR question. I was referencing your specific question, trying to get you to illuminate more about what YOUR position is on the topic. I LITERALLY was "interested in informing myself what YOUR OPINION on the post is about."
And now, per normal, I have a vague and undefined answer to a reasonable question that makes it appear like both, YES, you consider those soldiers who got into planes to kill other people to be heroes AND, NO, you're NOT saying that. By all means, answer directly and be clear:
DO YOU CONSIDER the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombers to be heroes? Is it NOT a yes/no answer for you? Then say that... say, "Well, I can't really call them heroes but..." and make your crumbling case.
DO YOU CONSIDER the soldiers who blindly "followed orders" and extrajudicially killed presumed innocent people at sea outside of any war and outside of any legal proceedings to be heroes? Yes or No?
You can't not directly answer questions and then claim I've misunderstood you HINT: IF I'm ASKING you a direct question, based upon your own words, it IS A QUESTION, not a claim. If you don't answer, then maybe that gives me an answer, maybe not... but you sure can't complain when I'm trying to find out directly what your opinion is if you don't answer!
Craig:
This is where your ignorance really makes it hard to take your seriously, as the evidence presented at trial did not show that Clancy was "mentally impaired" .
YOU were not on the jury and not at the trial.
I was not on the jury and not at the trial... and I don't know much about the details of the trial (I rather doubt that you do, either), but what I DO know is that 11 fellow citizens who DID sit through the trial and who DID hear all the testimony CLEARLY think your little opinion as an outsider is not accurate.
Do you see how that is safe to say?
That is, YOU weren't on the jury but 11 people who WERE on the jury don't agree with your little non-expert opinion that she wasn't mentally impaired, that is a factually correct statement, is it not? If so, then why should your outsider, non-expert, uninformed opinion count more than theirs?
It's really off-putting how so many non-experts (especially prevalent in the "alternative fact maga world") presume that they know better than people who were actually involved and who listened to the actual experts and testimony from BOTH sides, just as our system of justice allows for.
You all are like little children, just as your leader is. You don't like a result, you whine, you fuss, you make unsupported allegations, you blame jurors, experts and others for reaching a conclusion based upon the evidence that you personally don't like.
Grow up. That childish insistence on getting your way is just an indictment of the modern conservative "movement."
Do you agree that your deviant is being childish and dangerous to the US with his insisting on naming stuff after him, on enriching himself and his family with his position and his naming "rights"? Do you agree that you'd be losing your MIND if Hunter Biden had a very expensive wedding paid for by Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin? Do you agree that your idiot pervert leader's attacks on his OWN SCOTUS judges for not giving him his way is an attack on the judiciary and our better ideals?
God have mercy.
Craig:
By all means, define "some level" of accountability? What is appropriate for premeditated murder?
Well, that's just it, isn't it? In the Clancy case, premeditated murder was NOT objectively proven. Eleven of twelve jurors did NOT find that to be the case, that's just an objective fact, isn't it?
Look, if you REALLY think that she's guilty, but 11/12 of the jury was not convinced, then isn't your argument really against the prosecutor for failing to make his case? Are you (without evidence) suggesting that these jurors were all bribed? Were all "tricked..."? Would you have the 11 jurors dismissed for daring to disagree with you? What SHOULD happen when 11 jurors are not convinced of the charges? Should we defer to your non-expert judgment and just convict them, anyway?
Here it comes, the oldie but goody “you don’t answer questions” trope.
I understand that you need something to divert attention away from your ignorance and parroting of the pro Clancy narrative. But you asked a question, I answered it. I didn’t expect that you would like my answer, because you rarely do.
But yes, I do consider those who risk life and limb to protect and defend the US and its citizens to be heroes to some degree. Are there an individuals who engage in actions that go above and beyond expectations that are truly heroes, absolutely. But I absolutely believe that it takes a degree of heroism and sacrifice to put oneself in harm’s way for the benefit of others.
But, I get that you don’t appreciate the sacrifice of millions of men and women who sacrificed life limb to stop the evil of the Axis powers.
Again, your ignorance is showing. The jurors who have spoken publicly have been quite clear that they did not follow the law, the jury instructions, and ignored evidence.
They’ve been quite clear about their process, not to mention the TV station and wife of one of the defense attorneys who’ve seemingly violated the law in their rush to discredit the one juror who stood firm.
No, it’s not. But you’ve chosen ignorance.
No, it’s against the jury for failing to follow the law and instructions they were given.
No, but your idiocy and ignorance are making you look stupid for making shit up.
No, I would strongly hope that the prosecutor will evaluate what they’ve said and the doxxing of the holdout and take appropriate action.
There should be a hung jury and a retrial.
No.
Your confidence is appalling given your self confessed ignorance.
Your idiotic questions, are hilarious given your refusal to answer mine.
Ignorance, hypocrisy, and arrogance are not a good combination.
I’ve posted the jurors own words and all sorts of expert commentary. But you’ve chosen ignorance.
I’m not surprised you’re defending/excusing these brutal murders, when you already support/defend/excuse dismemberment of innocent children by the millions.
It’s ignorant to say given the vast amount of information available that you choose to ignore.
If you want to make shit up and assign your made up BS to the jurors, I can’t stop you. What I can do is stop taking your ignorant fantasies, seriously.
The answers to your questions are readily available. The testimony, the interviews, the analysis, the doxxing, all of it. I’ve been worried that I’ve been posting too much about it, when clearly I haven’t posted enough. You present your hunches about what is “illegal“ as if they are fact, while choosing ignorance when all of the information you could possibly want is readily available to you.
If you choose to keep looking like a moron and making more of these comments, I’m not gonna stop you. But if you’re gonna hide behind ignorance, I see no reason to take you seriously.
The most glaring example of the failure of the jury, is that multiple jurors are on record as saying that they do not believe that Clancy actually killed her children. They claimed that the prosecution did not prove that Clancy killed her children. The problem with this belief is that Clancy herself does not dispute the fact that she killed her own children. The defense team, acknowledged that she had killed her own children. That Clancy made sure that her husband would not be in the house, by sending him on errands, that Clancy intentionally took all three of her children to the basement and separated them, that Clancy took an exercise band and spent minutes holding each child down and choking them while looking into their faces, is not in dispute. Yet multiple juries, insist that there was no proof that Clancy murdered her children. What more proof do you need? Than the murderer, admitting her actions in court?
Okay, now, IF it turns out that YOU clearly misread the news and YOU are not as informed as I am (and I have not been following the story closely), will you have the grace and humility and intellectual honor to admit you misspoke and falsely accused ME of ignorance when apparently, YOU READ the story closely and STILL misunderstood the facts?
Craig:
Again, your ignorance is showing. The jurors who have spoken publicly have been quite clear that they did not follow the law, the jury instructions, and ignored evidence.
The news on the story that I HAVE heard, even in passing:
Three female jurors - including the foreperson - told NBC the panel was ready to enter a verdict that Clancy was not guilty by way of insanity in the murder of her three children, but one juror would not agree.
The foreperson said the male juror [ie, the one who would NOT vote to dismiss the charges]
"admitted he had reasonable doubt"
in her criminal responsibility but wouldn't agree to a not guilty verdict.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74k13kpv2no
And thus, when some jurors have said that some didn't follow the law, they were speaking of THE HOLD OUT, not the jurors, themselves?
Do you see? Need more clarity:
They signalled multiple times they were facing a deadlock - and at one point told the judge that
one member of the panel
was not following the judge's instructions
on reasonable doubt.
Now, is it the case that you read this news from perhaps some of your less reputable "news sources" and FLIPPED it to make YOU think the opposite was true, that the jurors "admitted" they were not "following the law..."? Or, as you put it, "the jurors who have spoken publicly have been quite clear that they did not follow the law, the jury instructions, and ignored evidence. "
Which SHOULD have read, "the jurors who have spoken publicly have been quite clear that THE HOLD OUT did not follow the law, the jury instructions, and ignored evidence."
Isn't THAT the case and you made a stupidly false and slanderous accusation that the ELEVEN jurors didn't follow the law or jury instruction?
If so, an apology and a retraction are in order to the jurors, first of all.
THEN an apology for me telling ME I'm ignorant when you got the story exactly backwards? And THEN an admission that your reading comprehension on this story that you appear to think you've studied quite well was simply WAY off and exactly backwards?
Humble thyself, dear man. Confession is good for the soul. Confession is how you begin to restore your credibility.
More actual reporting, told straightly, not ass-backwards:
"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie, 25, said in an interview Wednesday....
Throughout Clancy's trial, much of the testimony centered on whether or not she was suffering from postpartum psychosis -- considered a psychiatric emergency, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- when she strangled her children and attempted to take her own life, and whether she should be held criminally liable for the killings.
Jurors in Massachusetts are instructed that in order to prove a defendant is criminally responsible for their conduct, prosecutors must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense," according to the Massachusetts Court System.
https://abc7ny.com/story/lindsay-clancy-juror-says-holdout-didnt-show-single-piece-evidence-explaining-vote/19814932/
Craig irrationally and, frankly, sounding a bit crazy, said:
The most glaring example of the failure of the jury, is that multiple jurors are on record as saying that they do not believe that Clancy actually killed her children.
? This is almost certainly NOT a factual claim based on actual real world data. CLANCY'S LEGAL TEAM admit she killed the children. They were NOT making the case that she didn't do it. I can find NO jurors saying anything of the sort (now that I'm looking into it, only to find how embarrassingly (for you) wrong and off base you are. WHERE in the name of all that is holy and rational are you getting your data for these crazy claims?
More actual news.
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/30/nx-s1-5948223/insanity-defenses-rarely-work-lindsay-clancys-case-may-be-different
Craig:
Yet multiple juries, insist that there was no proof that Clancy murdered her children. What more proof do you need? Than the murderer, admitting her actions in court?
You DO understand that this was not the point of the trial, not the question being asked? NO ONE disputed she killed the children - a horrible tragedy! The question was, was she mentally rational/sane when she did it. Did Clancy admit being sane in court? Because that was the defense being made and it came down to prosecutors arguing she WAS sane and she should be held accountable while the defense argued she was not sane and should not be held accountable. The defense's argument and their experts swayed the jurors - eleven unique fellow citizens who heard ALL the evidence (unlike you).
There are two or three things that might be rationally discussed here:
1. Should the Massachusetts' laws be made more difficult for the insanity plea?
2. Did the Prosecutors do a poor job?
3. Did the Prosecutors pursue the wrong charge? If they were charging her with manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter (or whatever the law is in Mass), would they have prevailed? That would be on them.
4. What IS the right moral and legal approach to take when mentally ill people commit horrible crimes?
NONE of that, however, is reason to disparage the jurors, especially when THEY were in the courtroom and you were NOT, and that THEY did not slanderously misrepresent you the way you did them.
The bottom line for now: The Prosecutors lost what would seem to be an easy case, UNLESS she's actually insane (or was at the time). This is on them, not the jurors.
A final question to you: What do YOU know about postpartum psychosis? Do you imagine that it's not a "real thing..." and if so, based upon what expertise?
While I'm waiting for you to read and reread the known data about this trial and for you to recognize that, whoops, you made a mistake, I want to point out the problem with delusions as it relates to criminal culpability.
You see there's no one standard sort of delusion, there are a whole range of types and causes of delusions. In some cases people may still have their moral values but truly not understand in a given situation that an awful action that they're taking is wrong in that situation. The delusion is so strong that it overrides their moral reasoning and they do an awful thing. In that case it makes no more sense to punish them for the crime than it does to punish a wheelchair user for not running in a marathon.
On the other hand some people experience delusions and yet the delusions do not override or confuse their moral reasoning to the degree that they would commit an atrocity. Understanding that is just not a neat and simple thing to do. Do you know enough about psychology and mental health to recognize that?
So there is no one-size-fits-all answer and that's why, in legal trials like the Clancy trial, we listen to the experts on both sides. And then, a jury has to decide, in an impossible-to-decide scenario, who has made the best case. I don't know how to improve that. I'm guessing you don't either. Do you think the rule should be to universally punish them all the same as a right-thinking person, regardless of the disability? Or do you stand by the system as it is, where the prosecutor has to prove that the person is not crazy and was not able to understand the morality of their actions? (Which I believe is the case in Massachusetts.)
If it was the case that Clancy truly thought she was doing the right thing by her children, that she was doing the best she could for her children and thinking otherwise was beyond her control, if that's what she thought, do you think she should go to prison for life because of that mental illness that was beyond her control?
Or do you think there should be a separate more rational response?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-the-lindsay-clancy-trial-reveals-about-a-broken-postpartum-mental-health-system
Dan
Given that you’d read nothing about the trial or the evidence, the fact that you’re playing this game is hilarious. You’ve magically gone from ignorant to expert.
Whats even funnier is that Clancy was never diagnosed with postpartum anything..
She was being treated by multiple doctors and was a nurse herself. She was on multiple medications, and had both family members and paid help. She literally sent her husband away to specific locations for things so that he would be gone long enough to murder her children..,
Yeah, strangling your children is never a rational response. But you keep making excuses.
Again your magical jump to expert is hilarious.
We literally have jurors saying in interviews that they didn’t believe she killed her children. Despite Clancy admitting that she did.
They had jurors testifying during deliberations as well.
The bulk the jury was predisposed to find her not guilty and they pressured the few that didn’t into compliance.
Who in the hell are you to decide what can be discussed at my blog?
And yet, the interviews of jurors saying exactly that are readily available.
You believing something exists isn’t the standard by which we judge things.
Yet, I saw not one expert witness who testified that she had postpartum psychosis.
Yes, the MA insanity rules are different than most.
Most normal people would probably conclude that the premeditated actions to get her husband out of the house, and gathering the things needed for the murder as evidenced against insanity.
But who cares about that.
You’re the one who repeatedly used your ignorance as an excuse, I’m just acknowledging your ignorance.
As I’m not perfect, and as it’s possible that there are mistakes made, I’m always prepared to acknowledge mistakes. It’d be nice if you did the same.
Blame the black guy, that’s a good look. We know tsar jurors were testifying during deliberations, and we now know that at least one of the not guilty jurors should have been excluded for lying.
I’ve posted sources for all of this stuff and you’re welcome to prove those wrong.
This is what happens when you don’t read what I actually say, and make shit up.
FYI, there’s a reason why a unanimous verdict is required, and this is why. When the majority tries to pressure the holdout to compromise, we see why. The judge could have removed the holdout if there was evidence to do so, but that didn’t happen.
You telling anyone to humble themselves is the height of hypocrisy.
I’ve got multiple posts about this story, feel free to find the mistakes in them.
I’ve got multiple posts about this story, feel free to find the mistakes in them.
If want to comment on the actual topic this post, feel free.
If you want to comment on the actual trial, do that on one of the posts about trial.
Wow. The bold and ignorant arrogance is just depressingly amazing.
Dan
Yeah it is, that’s why I pointed yours out hours ago.
I’ve given you plenty of room for your off topic BS. There are plenty of posts about the trial, the holdout, and the rest of it. If you want to comment on the specifics of one of the posts about the trial, feel free. But stay on the topic of this post.
“I am troubled by the Lindsay Clancy jurors who continue to speak publicly, because their comments suggest that some of them viewed the trial as an opportunity to advance a social cause rather than answer the narrow legal question placed before them.
Juror Paula Devlin said she believed a not-guilty verdict would have been a “turning point for women” and could potentially prevent another woman in Lindsay’s situation from killing her children. But jurors are not legislators, policymakers, advocates, or activists. They are fact-finders. Their responsibility was not to send a message about women’s health or consider the social repercussions of their verdict. It was to determine whether the Commonwealth proved criminal responsibility, including whether Lindsay’s mental illness left her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or conform her conduct to the law.
Another juror, who ultimately changed her vote from guilty to not guilty, said she was concerned that Lindsay would not receive the help she needed in prison. That was not her decision to make. Jurors are not supposed to choose a verdict based on the punishment they fear might follow it. Their role is to determine the facts and apply the law. Sentencing, placement, and treatment are matters for the court after the verdict. Sympathy about what might happen to Lindsay cannot substitute for deciding whether she was legally responsible when she killed her children.
Then there is juror Kelly Ferreira, who reportedly participated in the Free Karen Read movement and embraced its conspiracy theories. She complained that the lone holdout juror “couldn’t get past that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
Couldn’t get past it? That was not some irrelevant emotional obstacle. Lindsay viciously killed her three beautiful children. The jurors were required to evaluate how she planned and carried out those killings, along with the evidence that she understood what she was doing and knew it was wrong. The holdout was not failing to understand the case. He appears to have remained focused on the very facts the others were required to confront.
I believe deeply in the jury system, which is precisely why these statements are so disturbing. A courtroom is not a referendum on women’s health, postpartum support, the adequacy of prison treatment, or whether society needs to do more for struggling mothers. Those may be important public-policy conversations, but they cannot replace the law or the evidence. Justice requires jurors to decide the case that was actually tried, not use three murdered children as the vehicle for the social statement they wanted to make.“
Ignorant Dan,
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at military targets. And due to the strength of the bombs civilians were bound to be affected as with every bombing of every target in WWII by both sides. The use of the bombs stopped the war; to invade Japan would have cost millions more lives. Typical LEFTIST talking point is that they were war crimes, but that would make every bombing war crimes. You are such a fool to even raise these bombings/
The evidence in the Clancy trial was 100% demonstrating that she intentionally murdered her children and even the planning was exposed, and she admitted it. There should NEVER be a “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea, rather it should be “guilt by reason of insanity,” but the consequences should still be severe, either life in prison or execution. The jury didn’t say she wasn’t guilty, they said she wasn’t guilty by reason of insanity and that is what the lone, courageous juror disagreed with. And some of the women jurors stated that they didn’t want Clancy to go to jail, that they wanted to give women like her an alibi, etc. It was THOSE eleven who disregarded the law for emotional reasons.
The supposed “innocent” people at sea killed by Trump administration were proven to be gangs and drug dealers.
More slander against Trump continues to prove Dan has a severe case of TDS. Obama and Biden regimes renamed hundreds of things with no outcry from you and your ilk.
To make the comparison Dan makes is comparing apples to cactus. Although these sorts of category errors are part of Dan's shtick. Dan isn't bothered by the rest of the bombing campaign which was much more significant, Japan's actions before and during WW2, or the 500k-million(s) of Allied troops and Japanese civilians who's have died if there had been an invasion.
I agree with guilty by reason of insanity. The notion that she could spend a couple of months in a hospital and is declared magically cured is what would be insane. Not to mention the adulation, fund raising, and copycats we've seen. Good point, noting that she wasn't found not guilty. Hopefully the prosecution will do a better job with jury selection the next time. What's amazing is the fact that multiple jurors have proudly announced that they abandoned following the law or judges instructions. Not to mention the news station which appears to have broken MA law by doxxing the holdout.
A while back I posted an extensive piece on the legal justification for the interdiction of drug shipments and it was pretty convincing. That Dan didn't pay any attention to the legal foundation, or doesn't care to find out if his assumptions are accurate is not surprise at all.
Dan has the bizarre ability to magically separate Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the context surrounding them. He ignores, for example, that the Japanese leadership was given ample opportunity to surrender before either was bombed, and a second opportunity before bomb 2. He also ignores the fact that Japan had been inflicting the most horrific atrocities on innocents since the 1930s, and was prepared to continue as long as no one stopped them.
Post a Comment