1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

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

At this point, does anybody even remember who deserves justice in this case? Because somehow it seems like Lindsay is the one people think deserves justice.

17 minutes 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

Did you watch the King interview? He couldn't get past the fact she acted normal when the husband called and went through things systematically. She was obviously angry he wouldn't change his vote and it's coming out of the mouth of someone who is going to support her in person in the next trial.

@Mike030270

11 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

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

Always the possibility the juror lied to him when he said he'd apple the instructions. Certainly seems that way. If he felt the others were being misleading then he should have spoken up

5 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

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

Well you're clearly biased from all that I've seen you post about this

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Did you watch the King interview? He couldn't get past the fact she acted normal when the husband called and went through things systematically. She was obviously angry he wouldn't change his vote and it's coming out of the mouth of someone who is going to support her in person in the next trial.

I've watched some of these but not all. I'm not as invested by the feelings of the trial as others

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

@Mike030270

Yes. They're all getting their 15 mins of fame

Just now, Mike030270 said:

Always the possibility the juror lied to him when he said he'd apple the instructions. Certainly seems that way. If he felt the others were being misleading then he should have spoken up

Well you're clearly biased from all that I've seen you post about this

I've watched some of these but not all. I'm not as invested by the feelings of the trial as others

I'm not on the jury. When I hear a woman systematically planned and carried out the murder of her children after visiting multiple doctors who said she showed no symptoms and was lucid on the phone with her husband in the middle of them....while taking them one by one into the basement, wrapping a cord around their little necks and squeezing the life out of them to the point one's eyes came out of the socket...yeah I'm biased. I feel for the kids who had to be scared and confused beyond belief because their own mother was murdering them. I can't even fathom how evil that is and how they must have felt both physically and emotionally.

So I don't give a F about her. Multiple doctors examined her, the FBI guy on the stand went through why people having an episode don't act like that, and she was lucid on the phone. She should never see the outside world again. Now, if sending her to a mental institution for life was an option it would be one thing, but she could be out in a year if someone deems her fit. Likely? No, but there is no set limit past someone's opinion. So yeah, I'm biased.

5 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Always the possibility the juror lied to him when he said he'd apple the instructions. Certainly seems that way. If he felt the others were being misleading then he should have spoken up

Again, I don't know why you're attacking the juror who hasn't even spoken out. You're depending on hearsay from the other jurors who are honestly saying some of the most wild/stupid things. He believed there was too much planning and lucidity on the night of the murders and I completely agree with him.

6 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Yes. They're all getting their 15 mins of fame

At the expense of three murdered children.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm not on the jury. When I hear a woman systematically planned and carried out the murder of her children after visiting multiple doctors who said she showed no symptoms and was lucid on the phone with her husband in the middle of them....while taking them one by one into the basement, wrapping a cord around their little necks and squeezing the life out of them to the point one's eyes came out of the socket...yeah I'm biased. I feel for the kids who had to be scared and confused beyond belief because their own mother was murdering them. I can't even fathom how evil that is and how they must have felt both physically and emotionally.

So I don't give a F about her. Multiple doctors examined her, the FBI guy on the stand went through why people having an episode don't act like that, and she was lucid on the phone. She should never see the outside world again. Now, if sending her to a mental institution for life was an option it would be one thing, but she could be out in a year if someone deems her fit. Likely? No, but there is no set limit past someone's opinion. So yeah, I'm biased.

"YoURe nOt AppLying the LaW coRRecTLY!!"

41 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

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

I think it's pretty rare for cases like this to go to a third trial. Another hung jury would likely lead to the state dropping the case, or the defense asking the judge to dismiss it outright.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think it's pretty rare for cases like this to go to a third trial. Another hung jury would likely lead to the state dropping the case, or the defense asking the judge to dismiss it outright.

Well, let's hope the prosecution picks a better jury. Good luck in that pool, honestly.

3 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Again, I don't know why you're attacking the juror who hasn't even spoken out. You're depending on hearsay from the other jurors who are honestly saying some of the most wild/stupid things. He believed there was too much planning and lucidity on the night of the murders and I completely agree with him.

I'm not attacking the juror. I'm simply saying if this was a different trial then having a juror vote guilty when they had expressed that they had doubt is wrong

He's not some hero to me because he said guilty like he is for you two 🤷‍♂️

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

So yeah, I'm biased.

Thank you for admitting it

4 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I'm not attacking the juror. I'm simply saying if this was a different trial then having a juror vote guilty when they had expressed that they had doubt is wrong

He's not some hero to me because he said guilty like he is for you two 🤷‍♂️

That's not how it works. You're allowed to have some doubt and still vote guilty taking all of the other evidence into account. Unless you were in her head the night of the murders there's always going to be doubt. Is it reasonable considering the planning/circumstances she created in order to have the opportunity? No.

Don't let the smear campaign work on you. The way the other jurors are acting is gross and shows some serious character issues. Consider your sources wisely on this one.

7 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

That's not how it works. You're allowed to have some doubt and still vote guilty taking all of the other evidence into account. Unless you were in her head the night of the murders there's always going to be doubt. Is it reasonable considering the planning/circumstances she created in order to have the opportunity? No.

Don't let the smear campaign work on you. The way the other jurors are acting is gross and shows some serious character issues. Consider your sources wisely on this one.

I'm not letting any potential smear campaign do anything. I don't care as much as you two do. I figure he'll get his 15 min fame interview sometime soon too

37 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

At the expense of three murdered children.

can't stress this enough.

35 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

You're allowed to have some doubt and still vote guilty

Uh, not really. The standard is literally "beyond a reasonable doubt". And if he's verbally admitting he has doubts to other jurors during deliberations, the implication is he believes those doubts are reasonable. Unless he's just being a nuisance and verbalizing unreasonable doubts for funsies to draw things out on purpose or something.

Lone holdout was black male, and go !

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lone-holdout-juror-lindsay-clancy-trial-only-black-person-jury-panelist-reveals-report

41 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Well, let's hope the prosecution picks a better jury. Good luck in that pool, honestly.

Yeah, I'm not expecting much. That doesn't mean our society will be better for it. Like you said this has long stopped being about the kids.

I don't usually feel for people on death row, but this case made me think of that kid in Alabama who was put to death a few years ago for murdering five people on meth. The kid took responsibility and asked to be put to death.

From Google

"Dearman stated that dropping his appeals and speeding up his execution was the right thing to do and a way to deliver finality to the victims' families, despite family members and legal advocates noting his struggles with severe mental illness and lifelong drug addiction"

Meanwhile you have this lady who doesn't seem to give a crap about anyone but herself.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Uh, not really. The standard is literally "beyond a reasonable doubt". And if he's verbally admitting he has doubts to other jurors during deliberations, the implication is he believes those doubts are reasonable. Unless he's just being a nuisance and verbalizing unreasonable doubts for funsies to draw things out on purpose or something.

You quite literally have no idea the context of the "doubts" or how it was said or if he even used the word "doubt". Once again, the judge talked to him and decided not to kick him off the jury so I'm not even sure where this "Not following the law" BS is coming from.

1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

I'm not letting any potential smear campaign do anything.

Sure you are. You absolutely fell for it to the point of thinking the judge claimed he had doubt. No, the judge absolutely did not claim that. The jurors on their media tour are trying to claim that.

13 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

You quite literally have no idea the context of the "doubts" or how it was said or if he even used the word "doubt". Once again, the judge talked to him and decided not to kick him off the jury so I'm not even sure where this "Not following the law" BS is coming from.

That's why I said: "And if he's verbally admitting he has doubts to other jurors during deliberations..."

Now if instead you meant that you can admit initial doubts and then vote guilty after those doubts were addressed, then that's different. But otherwise the standard is clear, as a juror, you have to weigh the admissable evidence presented in court and assert that there is no doubt in your final conclusion.

25 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

You quite literally have no idea the context of the "doubts" or how it was said or if he even used the word "doubt". Once again, the judge talked to him and decided not to kick him off the jury so I'm not even sure where this "Not following the law" BS is coming from.

I think you nailed it there. I could be wrong but I thought he talked to them all where I'm sure they brought it up. Either way the judge read the note and met with him and if it was as simple as I have doubts but I'm not changing my vote he would have been tossed.

2 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

Thank you for admitting it

Why wouldn't any rational person be after hearing the facts? The only thing people on the other side have is an imaginary command voice that suddenly appeared and a BS Mass law making it difficult to prove otherwise. Oh, and the women are all crazy sisters BS we see rallying around her. That's it....assuming you want to overlook the 3 kids she admits to strangling. No history after multiple doctors, lucid during it, dead kids.

But feel free to listen to this witness as well