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
I suspect the next trial will be somewhat different, but with Clancy found not guilty by reason of mental illness.
I don’t think any prosecution is going to convince 12 people that she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt; not given her medical and drug history.
We’ll see.
Bull. Not guilty by reason of insanity does not mean she gets sent to the looney bin. It means she’s “Not Guilty” which means that if she is no longer suffering from the condition that led to the crime, she walks free. The prosecution put on a dozen witnesses that says she wasn’t and isn’t legally insane. So there would be no current legal basis to send her to a psyche ward.
Do you think she should be released? If so, then maybe you are insane.
I think the best thing for this country is to deport all the liberal commie white women and leave some hispanic women behind..heck hispanic women dont do this crap, Id take a few of them and deport the white women
“11 people out of 12 had no problem deciding.”
You don’t know that those eleven people were saying she was not guilty?
That One Person, a male, is a hero.
She agrees with the 11.
Massachusetts law does not state that a person not guilty due to mental state just walks free.
The reaction of the defense lawyer implies that the jury were coming down on his side. If not, he wouldn’t have tried the maneuvers he did.
Yes, but hey are the scum of America, on the other hand, they make men of all races want to vote Republican.
I agree. If that happens, I HOPE she’ll be institutionalized and not released to walk among us.
She probably thought she’d skate 100% and then could go on to live her despicable life. (Personally, I would not be surprised if she were having an affair, and the kids were in the way. Susan Smith. Diane Downs.)
I think anything like an affair would have come out in the trial.
Everyone with a brain knows the formula. Load the Jury with women and talk about feelings. It’s the Truth, sadly.
One juror stood up for three children who were murdered by their mother. ONE.
When did we stop protecting children at all costs?
#IamTheHoldout— Lara Logan (@laralogan) September 4, 2026
not guilty and she’d be walking in 15 years or less
She might go free, but I'm pretty sure she ain't walking.
you watch
She’s wheelchair bound, paralyzed from the waist down. She ain’t walking.
I know her story and won’t be surprised when she’s up and about
Even Raskolnikov, with a charge of “a temporary mental aberration” got life in Siberia.
If you’re suggesting the wheelchair is not as necessary as it has been made to seem and that her paralysis has been an act to garner sympathy, I suppose that’s something that wouldn’t be beneath her and her slimy attorney.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't want to serve on this jury due to my own biases. I couldn't.
But that's not the point. The points have been made by the saner voices (not many) on this thread. Otherwise, you get verdicts like the Chauvin trial. That's the reverse point of view.
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.