Just now, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, if you listen to those videos you can tell how impartial they were and how they based it on facts not feelings 🤣😂

"But she was such a good mom"

Yeah, those other jurors sure were making their decision based on fact 

Just now, Paul852 said:

"But she was such a good mom"

Yeah, those other jurors sure were making their decision based on fact 

They were so cold from the start and didn't have compassion towards her

A juror said they had reasonable doubt but voted guilty and people are praising them. Place them on any other trial and that's just wrong

49 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

The reactions are hilarious. One vlogger who evidently sat through the trial is "shocked" it was him.

It's shocking a black man was engaged and made up his own mind after intently listening to what he obviously thought was BS....

They are trying to portray him as someone who was on his phone, needed things explained to him to show he wasn't taking it seriously. But now this comment that he was engaged and paying attention the whole time. It's only a matter of time before he gets doxxed and harassed by the TikTik detectives.

39 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Oh trust me, I'm well aware that I'm not playing my role. Nice effort trying to force feed my opinion to me based on politics.

It's not forcefeeding anything. Im saying you're acting like the the same MAGA morons you have bucked against for years. You're making an emotional determination and ignoring facts because it aligns more with your beliefs. Pretending that 11/12 people are "being emotional women" and the 1 guy is a "hero" despite the fact that by all reports he had reasonable doubt and yet refused to follow the oath of a juror, and completely ignored evidence like a toxicology report showing exactly what she was on. You're also perpetuating false equivalencies like "drugs and hormones don't excuse murder!" despite that not being the argument. At all.

Again, MAGA like behavior. 🤷🏻

46 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

"But she was such a good mom"

Yeah, those other jurors sure were making their decision based on fact 

Literally zero negative character witnesses. Either the prosecutor is epically incompetent (possible given his pretrial selections) or...she was prior to this.

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

Never mind the Chris Benoit case

Didn't he kill himself though? A better example would need to be a case of a husband murdering his children and then being found NGRI by the same legal standards. It basically reduces it to cases only in MA or any other states where the prosecution has to prove sanity rather than the inverse.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

Fine by me. As long as she doesn't go free. Purgatory is good enough.

Not sure what you mean by purgatory. The state can't keep her in custody indefinitely.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Didn't he kill himself though? A better example would need to be a case of a husband murdering his children and then being found NGRI by the same legal standards. It basically reduces it to cases only in MA or any other states where the prosecution has to prove sanity rather than the inverse.

Yes. But he was a high profile man, and by the logic of if a man did it there would be research, then if a celebrity man did it you'd think they'd do research and fund it, according to Oprah.

I just don't like the narratives unfolding from this case. And the one clip seemed to be blaming Patrick Clancy again, and everyone crying for mothers and not the children, and the one woman who said she felt it was murder immediately Oprah (from her position of power and influence) questioned her and implied she was wrong.

Just now, NOTW said:

Yes. But he was a high profile man, and by the logic of if a man did it there would be research, then if a celebrity man did it you'd think they'd do research and fund it, according to Oprah.

I just don't like the narratives unfolding from this case. And the one clip seemed to be blaming Patrick Clancy again, and everyone crying for mothers and not the children, and the one woman who said she felt it was murder immediately Oprah (from her position of power and influence) questioned her and implied she was wrong.

Not sure what she means by funded research but I thought they did find he had CTE (as most wrestlers probably do).

But again it seems the real issue here is with the legal standard in the state of Maryland. Per the judge's explanation of state law, 11 jurors didn't feel that standard was met, and 1 hold out did. Hopefully it heads for a re-trial but it's also possible the state will drop their case entirely. At which point, the lone hold out will be the reason she walks free and shirts involuntary commitment.

Andrea Pia Yates (née Kennedy; born July 3, 1964^[2]) is an American woman from Houston, Texas, who confessed to drowning her five children in their bathtub on June 20, 2001.^[3] The case of Yates—who had exhibited severe postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, and schizophrenia in the years leading up to the murders—placed the M'Naghten rules, along with the irresistible impulse test for sanity, under close public scrutiny in the United States.

At Yates's 2002 trial, Chuck Rosenthal, the district attorney for Harris County, asked for the death penalty. Yates was convicted of capital murder, but the jury refused the death penalty option. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after forty years. The verdict was overturned on appeal, in light of false testimony by a prosecution witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz.^[4]

On July 26, 2006, a Texas jury in her retrial found that Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity. She was consequently committed by the court to the high-security North Texas State Hospital in Vernon,^[5] where she received medical treatment and was a roommate of Dena Schlosser, another woman who committed infanticide by killing her infant daughter. In January 2007, Yates was moved to Kerrville State Hospital, a low-security state mental hospital in Kerrville, Texas.^[6][7]

I mean, yeah if a woman was ultimately found to be NGRI two decades ago in TX for murdering her 5 kids, then it was always going to be an uphill battle in MA where the prosecution apparently has a much tougher standard to meet.

39 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

It's not forcefeeding anything. Im saying you're acting like the the same MAGA morons you have bucked against for years. You're making an emotional determination and ignoring facts because it aligns more with your beliefs. Pretending that 11/12 people are "being emotional women" and the 1 guy is a "hero" despite the fact that by all reports he had reasonable doubt and yet refused to follow the oath of a juror, and completely ignored evidence like a toxicology report showing exactly what she was on. You're also perpetuating false equivalencies like "drugs and hormones don't excuse murder!" despite that not being the argument. At all.

Again, MAGA like behavior. 🤷🏻

Like I said, I refuse to be pigeon-holed into my opinion because you say so. She clearly planned it and I commend this man for seeing through the bullsh**. It's no coincidence he had no connection to project on Lindsay like a lot of people seem to be doing.

46 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

A juror said they had reasonable doubt but voted guilty and people are praising them. Place them on any other trial and that's just wrong

Unless he comes out and explains himself you really can't attribute this quote to him. It could be as simple as him saying "I understand where you're coming from but I still think this was premeditated"

39 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not sure what you mean by purgatory. The state can't keep her in custody indefinitely.

I mean to keep trying her with a jury that can't agree til the end of time. Sounds like a perfect middle ground.

5 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Unless he comes out and explains himself you really can't attribute this quote to him. It could be as simple as him saying "I understand where you're coming from but I still think this was premeditated"

I'm going by what the report of the judge said

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

I'm going by what the report of the judge said

You have a quote of the judge saying he had reasonable doubt?

3 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

You have a quote of the judge saying he had reasonable doubt?

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sitroom/date/2026-09-04/segment/03

SULLIVAN: The note that we were referring to, the one from late yesterday afternoon, indicates that the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-09/lindsay-clancy-jury-mistrial-reasonable-doubt/107135554

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sitroom/date/2026-09-04/segment/03

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-09/lindsay-clancy-jury-mistrial-reasonable-doubt/107135554

Oh, is the word "reasonable" missing in there? Because that's the threshold, is it not? And again, that note came from the foreperson, not the judge. And based on the smear campaign the jurors are putting on I will withhold believing a word they say.

Just now, Paul852 said:

Oh, is the word "reasonable" missing in there? Because that's the threshold, is it not? And again, that note came from the foreperson, not the judge. And based on the smear campaign the jurors are putting on I will withhold believing a word they say.

The judge should have made the call after complaints to replace the juror IMO

3 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

The judge should have made the call after complaints to replace the juror IMO

He talked to the juror and saw no reason to replace him. Our country does not allow jury intimidation just because they disagree. Sorry.

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

It's not forcefeeding anything. Im saying you're acting like the the same MAGA morons you have bucked against for years. You're making an emotional determination and ignoring facts because it aligns more with your beliefs. Pretending that 11/12 people are "being emotional women" and the 1 guy is a "hero" despite the fact that by all reports he had reasonable doubt and yet refused to follow the oath of a juror, and completely ignored evidence like a toxicology report showing exactly what she was on. You're also perpetuating false equivalencies like "drugs and hormones don't excuse murder!" despite that not being the argument. At all.

Again, MAGA like behavior. 🤷🏻

So the women who made it emotional by saying from the opening statement the prosecution was cold and didn't feel for her or they voted to get her help etc weren't emotionally based? Get real dude. Or the he couldn't get past the fact she murdered her kids. Come on

21 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I'm going by what the report of the judge said

Based on the report by emotionally driven women. Women never take what a man says out of context.