Posted on 09/04/2026 1:15:06 PM PDT by Phoenix8
PLYMOUTH, MA — After several days of deliberation, a jury was unable to ultimately decide whether murder is wrong.
The deep nuances of the case delayed the decision, with jurors facing intricate legal and moral questions such as whether it's fine to methodically strangle your own kids one by one.
"Oof. That was a toughie," said Juror number seven, reviewing the facts of the case. "There was so much to consider, like if luring children down into a basement to murder them is bad. We were really at a loss."
According to anonymous sources, the jury had concluded that squeezing the life out of a puppy while it desperately struggled to breathe was bad, but they were not yet sure if that applied to humans. "We are pretty confident that choking puppies to death is wrong," said an anonymous juror. "If they are your own children, and you're not feeling good, maybe it's okay. We just couldn't decide."
At publishing time, the jury had decided that it was best for America to do this all again in a few months.
I’m concentrating on one particular point because it changes simple manslaughter to premeditated murder. I’m not considering the mental illness defense; that can come later. That may or may not change how the case should be prosecuted. We can discuss that later.
I just want to understand this one point: Are you at all troubled that she put research into how to kill her children?
I’m troubled by the entire case, every aspect of it.
Given the evidence in this case, I don’t think even a jury full of liberal minded people would be able to find for manslaughter under the Massachusetts definition.
People suffering psychosis can certainly be capable of premeditated planning and methodical carrying out of a crime. They can be delusional. I think she should, and will be, found not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.
(I heard someone today suggest that instead of lowering the charge, the DA might go for 1st degree murder again; and he strikes me as someone who thinks he’s right and could very well do it again. But I don’t believe they could ever get a conviction on that in this case.)
The one guy on the jury sure did. I bet hes the only one who can define what a woman is, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.