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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
You are correct. Reddington confirmed in a press conference Friday that the majority of jurors were voting to acquit Clancy, with one man holding out. I feel like an idiot for thinking it was the lone man wanting to acquit. I also feel shocked that the rest wanted to acquit. What has abortion taken us to?
I would just say if your going by what that defense attorney is saying I’d suggest you get your info elsewhere.
He is probably the last person that you’ll hear objective information from in this case.
I don’t think ‘acquittal’ as people seem to mean it was in the cards. Even not guilty by reason of her state of mind would probably keep her locked up for a long time.
I’m going by what the attorney AND the judge said.
Absurdity to demonstrate absurdity.
I see it as the one juror followed the judge’s instructions to the letter. His belief wasn’t popular so they bullied him and he stood his ground.
Even the judge, after he questioned each juror separately, said the guy had no problem with the instructions. He just had a different belief re guilty vs not guilty. Jurors are allowed to do that; that’s why we have the system we have.
“That was the opinion of the Foreman of the jury if this is to be believed. The contents of the note are not public.”
EXACTLY! The foreman created the note and most likely threw the one holdout under the bus using disparaging verbiage and narrative.
Makes a person avoid MA, if you love life.
The discrepancy between how men and women under psychiatric episodes are treated is crazy. They sentence the men to death in minutes.
What I’ve just heard on FOX is that the one DID express doubt, but still refused to follow the instruction.
Unless members of the jury speak up, I guess we’ll never know. They have no obligation to explain themselves to the public.
Zackly.
Our family had an ex-husband who scrawled “You are a whore,” on the wall of her place of employment. He also shot out the window in her living room. Finally, he caught his ex-wife’s lawyer on the sidewalk and almost cut off his head with a boning knife. The murder made big headlines on TV and newspapers. He got off from a Capital murder conviction with a mental illness defense. Letters to the editor of my newspaper were filled with outrage at the acquittal. It seems that if your crazy enough, you get three meals and a room at a mental hospital.
“What I’ve just heard on FOX is that the one DID express doubt, but still refused to follow the instruction.”
Fox reported that. The judge himself said the opposite.
some things were in her control before she took any pill that day.
I know some about addictiveness, and emotional outbursts/feeling out of control but we all have choices even if under influence.
Also Holy Spirit gives self control to any who ask. I know from things in life, some thing about that too.
if people got certain vitamin levels and various chemical levels in body checked and balanced out, instead of offered psych or depression meds, that would be healthier. most post-partum depression or similar mind issues/chemical imbalances can be easily addressed if PEOPLE would bother to learn instead of trusting doctors without full information about what they may be taking.
IF they choose to take it (informed or not), the consequences are on them for trusting man and themself and taking it.
Rx anxiety/depression meds are like some one choosing to drink or use rec drugs to handle stress. All choices with side effects. Just some are publicly more acceptable than others but all mind altering, and all choices, actions to be made.
She chose the psych meds. I think I read she was on multiple ones. People knew she was not ok, yet they let her be near the kids.
plenty of options before, whoops, I think I need a lawyer.
Yes God will forgive, if asked, but still consequences for her actions, murders.
It has to be a possible defense in our system, because whatever you may think about individual cases, sometimes people really ARE crazy and not fully responsible for their acts.
She chose the psych meds.
- - - - - - -
I agree with you that if she chose to take them, she should still be separated from society.
Well, if that was true, how could there be anything but a mistrial? A unanimous verdict was required.
Of course. Mistrial was the ONLY option. And Lindsay’s attorney wanted to throw out the person who was the thorn in the flesh and have acquittal with 11 people who agreed with him. What kind of precedent would that set for the future in America?
The Bee is right on the money. There is no possible excuse for this. And, yes, the question of whether it is ok to strangle your kids is the question before the jury. Don’t try to minimize what she did. She murdered her children. She needs the maximum sentence. End of story.
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.