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
Would anyone allow this woman to babysit THEIR children?
Charles Manson was crazy.
Having worked a court stenographer for over 40 years in military courts (both as an NCO and as a civil service employee), I have always thought that the judge's instructions to panel (jury) members on "reasonable doubt" was clear, concise, and easily understandable. As a matter of fact, one year, my mother was on a civilian jury and was confused about the "reasonable doubt" instruction given by the judge in her case. When I quoted her the instruction given in military courts, she told me that that was so easily understood that she had no further questions about it.
A "reasonable doubt" is not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offense, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution which does not amount to an element need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty.
A very good definition.
I think some people on these Clancy threads made their minds up before anything ‘evidentiary’ was presented, and ignoring it even after it was.
This is actually much more common than people realize. Not usually a national story but many in local news nationally. All the mommies use the insanity defense.
A copycat killer obsessed with Clancy trial.
I am wondering which bs the jury found persuasive. Did they believe she had a sudden onset too many months post partum psychotic episode with a 10 minute break in it to talk to her husband & goggle how long he would be gone ….OR did they buy the defense attorney claims that a male voice told her to do it, ie “ the Devil made me do it” defense, or was it the drugs she sought out & took? Who knows? Does anybody want to ask the jury where it saw reasonable doubt that makes her blameless for her actions. TV commercials tell us about side effects of drugs….& if I accidentally kill people when I am driving drunk, nobody says I am not to blame for accidental deaths. These children murdered by Lindsey Clancy were not accidentally killed. She chose to take the drugs. TV commercials tell us “ if you have thoughts of suicide after taking these drugs, then stop taking them and tell your medical doctor”. The drugs do not make people psychotic to the point where they are not in control of their actions. Manslaughter was offered up as a charge the jury could agree on. The jury almost all rejected it, because they wanted to believe a woman could not commit this act, even though she did. So they get buried in a defense attorney bs smokescreen, Buy into blaming rogue tsunami 25 minute psychosis long past post partum, or “ the system”, or “ the drugs”. Take your pick.
Common sense says it cannot be all of them & is not any of them.
“The reaction of the defense lawyer implies that the jury were coming down on his side.”
Yes. Of course. What is your point? All nine pink-pussy-hat wearing idiot women and two males, both geldings, wanted to vote the demon woman not guilty.
In any other time and place, the defense lawyer would have been kicked off the case and disbarred.
False. It was not the one juror who refused to follow the law, it is the 11 boneheads who found reasonable doubt from listening to that pos defense attorney’s bs psychobabble akin to throwing insubstantial stuff at a wall and hoping it will stick
She might have had some late late post partum psychotic fit with a break in the middle to talk calmly on the phone with her husband and to Goggle how long he would be gone……..or she might not be responsible because of the drugs she asked for and chose to take, or the Devil made her do it.
That was what those lazy dumbass 11 jurors decided when they chose to smoke the bs screen put out by the defense attorney.
The prosecutor case had no reasonable doubt at all. She methodically murdered her children and was fully aware of what she was doing. She did it because she planned to commit suicide and chose to take the children with her.
If I were ever in trouble, I’d like that ‘pos’ on my side.
You’re really rooting for the murderer, arent you?
Thank you for posting, very good read.
Each state follows its own unique statutes regarding an insanity defense with 4 states not even allowing it. The state of Massachusetts uses The Model Penal Code AND the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendent was not insane at the time of the criminal act. In some states the burden is on the defense to prove insanity. Here is a brief explanation by state:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html
So 11 jurors found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, the case being ONLY regarding proving that Clancy was NOT insane. Then 1 juror did not find so much reasonable doubt, meaning he believed the state’s case that Clancy was not insane and is therefore guilty of something on the list 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter.
Reasonable doubt cannot be forced on that juror.
I think you’re wrong. The judge interviewed the juror and didn’t dismiss that juror, thus the judge must have concluded the juror had the instruction correctly. He then called for a mistrial.
You are supposed to let juries decide the outcome, not dunk suspects under water on a pole till they confess like it's a Monty Python movie.
If it looks like the jury isn't going your way, you don't demonize the 'troublemaker' juror, and try to excise him from the jury by some crazy Third World lawless sham trickery, like this old crook tried to do.
Trial by jury. Find out about it.
“judge must have concluded the juror had the instruction correctly.”
Judge said that precise thing, i.e., that ALL jurors were fine with the Jury Instructions. That was right after he interviewed each one separately.
The jury WAS going in favor of not guilty.
If things had been allowed to continue, the result would have been the same: a hung jury and mistrial; and we’d be right where we are now.
Maybe I missed it, but aside from excusing her actions because of mental illness, are you at all troubled that she put research into how to kill her children?
…and even chased one down…who’d tried to run for his dad.
I have no idea how the strange, excessive, constantly changing drug ‘cocktail’ she was on - without proper monitoring!- would affect anyone, especially if they were already suffering mental illness. That was a big issue in the case, and would be an enormous problem for me if I had been on that jury.
Everyone who was close to her testified to her love for her children and the quality of her mothering. As far as I’m aware, nobody had anything bad to say about her. What changed and made her murderous?
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.