Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
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.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“One Person refused to follow the judge’s instructions”
That was what the defense attorney said.
Of course he would say that.
I distinctly heard the judge say the note from the jury foreman DIDN’T say that.
I’ll believe the judge over a defense attorney any day.
The woke left think they have won.
The world is putting The Bee out of business.
I’m going by what we’ve been told, and the behavior of the defense attorney and judge seem to bear it out. Do you think the foreman lied in the message to the judge, or that all the other individuals on a jury would tolerate the situation being misrepresented?
People here like to think that 12 randomly chosen people are always going to act according to the prevailing politics of their state, or their gender, or the color of their skin. But people are *individuals*. You can’t make blanket assumptions like that just to confirm your own biases.
It was reported that it is a man who is the only holdout. This is the jurist that the defense asked to be replaced because he is ignoring the rules for reasonable doubt and refused to apply the law.
You got the situation with the jurist backwards. It was all jurist except one who wanted conviction. The holdout is a man. I can’t understand it.
“I honestly do believe she is crazy. I do believe she knew right from wrong.”
contradiction. she cannot be both crazy, and knew right from wrong.
the little I read she was NOT crazy, she knew what she did was wrong.
I just wonder at what point did she know it was wrong? after killing one? or before killing any? or only after all?
The Netherworld really had a great victory today.
In one result, we saw how females really can't be trusted to do anything requiring responsibility.
That they will try to cheese and wriggle out of anything that they can based on their 'weaker sex', emotionally labile, retreat to crying, BS cop-out techniques.
So as far as I am concerned, no female should ever be POTUS. Or a judge. Or in Congress or the Senate. Or a CEO. Or a professor, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or anyone who works with sharp tools or firearms. Or in the military.
Because they COP OUT and try to get out of the rules that we normals have to obey. And THEY appear to want it this way.
Those disgusting females allow the horrible monster to kill her own offspring -- the scene I can't even bring myself to imagine: a nightmarish dark dirty basement, ones brother just dispatched to the afterlife, the second sibling dying, and I am next --
This is a horror scene even Hitchcock or Steven King would back away from -- it's just too monstrous and odious to even think of for an instant.
The horror those children experienced.
And the press hiding the fact that the monster looked up online all the things she would need to know to kill with effectiveness and speed.
What a monster.
And the skanks outside the courtroom: "How is Lindsay doing?" "Is she OK?". Disgusting, contemptible harridan AWFLs. May they go to hell with this killer.
And that awful, hell-bound creep of an old man attorney: Trying his best to OUT the male, sane juror who had the integrity to do his duty to mete out the justice that all these spoiled, narcissitic, pagan, ignorant, liberals lack the integrity to deliver.
And like a classic Rat, just because he didn't get what he wanted, he tries to out and demonize the brave holdout juror, to dox him if possible, to impugn his motives, to smear his character. Maybe to get one of the skanks to kill him.
They would all be pleased by that.
And the lawyer tries to subvert the jury system: TRIES TO REPLACE the 'defective' juror.
Oh, OK. That's a great precedent. If you have selected a juror through voir dire, all of its intricate rules, taking forever, AND the liberal side of the court doesn't get its way, THEN, just replace the holdout juror after six days of deliberation. Boy that's fair.
I just wonder at what point did she know it was wrong?
- - - - - - -
If her actions were out of her control, she wouldn’t make that kind of judgement. Psych pills are powerful and even stopping taking them has its own set of side effects.
It would be funny but it is an absolutely incomprehensible horror for these kids, who watched their mother kill their sibling, or two of their siblings, and then, himself, where he was beyond horrified, beyond mortified... then dead.
Can't imagine it. Too unspeakable.
But the murderess received a phone call from her husband while in the midst of this. Fielded it well enought that he did not immediately scramble the police.
So awful. And not insane enough to satisfy me.
I think the ‘holdout’ wanted conviction and the majority didn’’t feel the prosecution had proven its case.
Inspired by what just happened?
A woman just killed her three children...
You even parrot exactly what that hell-bound defense attorney said.
He vilifies and attacks a juror who is following his conscience during a deliberation. That is an obscenity for any attorney to do this.
"One person refused to follow the judge's instruction..." Exactly what the old defense liberal attorney said. You are pathetic.
If the reports we’ve heard about the situation in the jury room are accurate, it was not a question of ‘deciding on one’s own’. The problem appears to be following the judge’s instructions regarding the law and its meaning.
I am not a fan of anyone involved in this trial; but I am a fan of our legal and trial systems and want to see them operate correctly. We are given instructions by the judge when we are put on a jury. It’s essential that we follow them to the best of our ability. If we don’t, we don’t have a system at all; just ‘courts of opinion’.
This jury is dismissed. I fully expect there to be another one, and we can all argue over what they do, too.
And you care more about your preferred outcome than you do about the criminal trial system itself.
I learned about the sole holdout during live coverage. Ether it was Fox Live or OAN I learned of it. This is from MSN:
“Lindsay Clancy defense confirms holdout juror is male — as judge erupts on lawyer in wild courtroom outburst”:
I don’t think the sex of the person matters. Obviously, two who sided with the majority were also male.
If it’s true that the juror refused to apply the judge’s instruction, that’s a problem.
NO way in hell I would vote not-guilty if I were on this jury. The satan person KILLED three innocent children methodically one by one. There is no excuse. She should be hung by the thumbs til death.
Thanks for your input.
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.