20 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You clearly do not understand the Law in cases like this one. If the defendant is found to be Not Guilty, due to reasons of insanity, that defendant leaves the courtroom and is taken to an insane asylum for the criminally insane, where he/she will spend the best of his/her life. The bars are different, but they are bars nonetheless.

First, bars for as long as they deem her to be unfit. Not life. If it was an absolute life behind bars in a mental facility it would be different. Someone who kills three kids should never have a chance of seeing the outside world again regardless of what drove it to happen.

Second, that has nothing to do with the post discussing how jurors introduced medical experience that wasn't presented in court.

29 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

First, bars for as long as they deem her to be unfit. Not life. If it was an absolute life behind bars in a mental facility it would be different. It's not.

Second, that has nothing to do with the post discussing how jurors introduced medical experience that wasn't presented in court.

The sentence for the other options is rarely for life or life without parole.

My comment was addressed to the sum total of your comments, and the comments of others, in this thread.

Regarding the jurors sharing their perspective and the reasons behind that perspective, all jurors are expected to bring their life experience with them when they walk into the courtroom. They are not expected to be a tabula rasa.

36 minutes ago, mattwill said:

The sentence for the other options is rarely for life or life without parole.

My comment was addressed to the sum total of your comments, and the comments of others, in this thread.

Regarding the jurors sharing their perspective and the reasons behind that perspective, all jurors are expected to bring their life experience with them when they walk into the courtroom. They are not expected to be a tabula rasa.

They are not permitted to use that outside experience as medical experts who aren't subject to cross. They have to go on what was presented or ask the judge for clarification.

After seeing the interviews, and then understanding how the prosecution handled voir dire...

None of them should ever practice law again in their lives. JFC. The defense was worth their weight in gold just in the pre-trial process.

58 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

They are not permitted to use that outside experience as medical experts who aren't subject to cross. They have to go on what was presented or ask the judge for clarification.

Not permitted to use your personal education and experience?

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

This is what they're arguing about. Again this is all one sided, but based on what they're claiming he basically ignored the toxicology report and testimony from a toxicologist. IF the extent of the exchange was "he said we didn't know what drugs she was really on, and the nurse on the jury said we do because the toxicology report says so and gives a general idea of concentrations too" them that's really a nothingberder.

6 hours ago, mattwill said:

Not permitted to use your personal education and experience?

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

This is what they're arguing about. Again this is all one sided, but based on what they're claiming he basically ignored the toxicology report and testimony from a toxicologist. IF the extent of the exchange was "he said we didn't know what drugs she was really on, and the nurse on the jury said we do because the toxicology report says so and gives a general idea of concentrations too" them that's really a nothingberder.

Cute effort. Here is the full quote

If there are questions it goes to the judge not people acting as medical experts not subject to cross.

And no Matt they are not allowed to act as unvetted medical experts

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

This is what they're arguing about. Again this is all one sided, but based on what they're claiming he basically ignored the toxicology report and testimony from a toxicologist. IF the extent of the exchange was "he said we didn't know what drugs she was really on, and the nurse on the jury said we do because the toxicology report says so and gives a general idea of concentrations too" them that's really a nothingberder.

I still dont understand how being on drugs exempts you from murder. Drug addicts kill people all the time. Ive never heard, "you cant convict him because he was on drugs at the time".

JFC, prosecution never had a chance.

But the prosecution was cold so it was a no from go for the one...

3 hours ago, Gannan said:

I still dont understand how being on drugs exempts you from murder. Drug addicts kill people all the time. Ive never heard, "you cant convict him because he was on drugs at the time".

I'm not familiar with the legal precedent for something like this, but my guess is that there could be a difference in liability for abusing a scheduled substance illegally and then committing a crime as a result vs taking a legally prescribed medication at the indicated dosage which then puts you in an altered mental state unknowingly. The last part is key, I'd imagine, when it comes to determining culpability, but I honestly am not sure how it's viewed in the eyes of the law.

I will say that the prosecution having to prove she wasn't insane, is a faulty standard bordering on the fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative. Once it's established that she committed the act, it seems like a second trial or phase would be needed where the defense has to prove she was not sane rather than the inverse. I wonder if MA is an outlier with this legal standard or if it's the game in other states too.

17 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

🤣 crazy ****es...compassion towards Lindsay.

Smiling, gushing over the lawyer (like the fans outside the courthouse)... children were murdered.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I will say that the prosecution having to prove she wasn't insane, is a faulty standard bordering on the fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative. Once it's established that she committed the act, it seems like a second trial or phase would be needed where the defense has to prove she was not sane rather than the inverse. I wonder if MA is an outlier with this legal standard or if it's the game in other states too.

MA is an outlier there. AFAIK, in every other state the burden of proof in an insanity defense is on the defense, and the standard is preponderance of the evidence (>50%).

Having to have the prosecution prove sanity, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt, is very strange, and I can't think of a reason why they'd have wanted that setup.

5 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Cute effort. Here is the full quote

If there are questions it goes to the judge not people acting as medical experts not subject to cross.

And no Matt they are not allowed to act as unvetted medical experts

The last line of the clip about the holdout juror: "he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."

Well we all know what party the hold out juror belongs too. Science denier.

44 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I will say that the prosecution having to prove she wasn't insane, is a faulty standard bordering on the fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative. Once it's established that she committed the act, it seems like a second trial or phase would be needed where the defense has to prove she was not sane rather than the inverse. I wonder if MA is an outlier with this legal standard or if it's the game in other states too.

Might as well make them prove God doesn't exist while they're at it.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I will say that the prosecution having to prove she wasn't insane, is a faulty standard bordering on the fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative. Once it's established that she committed the act, it seems like a second trial or phase would be needed where the defense has to prove she was not sane rather than the inverse. I wonder if MA is an outlier with this legal standard or if it's the game in other states too.

I brought this up with my wife at the dinner table... big mistake. Jeffery Dahmer was out of his mind crazy and he still went to prison for killing all those people. (This point was not well received)

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

The last line of the clip about the holdout juror: "he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."

I noticed that too. So F'ed up.

57 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Might as well make them prove God doesn't exist while they're at it.

Yeah, it's a problem. I'd hope the legislature would take another look at that law or at least add in sentencing options that would send people to mental institutions for decades/life vs when someone believes them to be fit.

15 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I noticed that too. So F'ed up.

Agree. The lady saying she was excited to fill out the forms is messed up as well. Granted, she felt in her heart it was the right decision, but nobody should be giddy to let a lady off who murdered her three little kids. F'ed up situation but the right verdict would be the mindset I'd hope for from her.

6 hours ago, Gannan said:

I still dont understand how being on drugs exempts you from murder. Drug addicts kill people all the time. Ive never heard, "you cant convict him because he was on drugs at the time".

If you're proving that she underwent drug induced psychosis like the defense argued, then showing she had 6 separate prescribed heavy psychoactive meds in your system at the time of the murder is a good start. It's not "I was high so it was fine". It's "the meds induced psychopathy". Different argument.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

I brought this up with my wife at the dinner table... big mistake. Jeffery Dahmer was out of his mind crazy and he still went to prison for killing all those people. (This point was not well received)

Because Dahmer was a clinical psychopath. They argued Clancy's state of mind was induced by post partum state and the drugs they had her on. Not the same.

End of the day she's on 24/7 suicide watch. She's paralyzed from the waist down, killed her kids, lost her husband and most of the world hates her. I imagine everyone won't have to wait very long before she finds a way to off herself and "justice" is served.

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

most of the world hates her.

I'm not getting that. Whoever said she's the OJ of white women seems to have something there.

3 hours ago, Bill said:

MA is an outlier there. AFAIK, in every other state the burden of proof in an insanity defense is on the defense, and the standard is preponderance of the evidence (>50%).

Having to have the prosecution prove sanity, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt, is very strange, and I can't think of a reason why they'd have wanted that setup.

The argument I've heard from some lawyers I've talked to up here is that proving irrational thought processes is inherently hard to do because well...you're trying to argue crap that doesn't make sense. Whereas proving rational, premeditated thinking is easier to digest for a jury. Which makes some sense on paper. In practice? Ehhhh....

To your point though the defense absolutely crap the bed there too. They had zero negative character witnesses. If you're trying to prove sanity you'd think they'd try to build a case that she had done negative interactions with her kids beforehand.

What is it with women and their killer fan clubs? Male or female killer and they gravitate.