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 09/28/2026 6:23:27 AM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
Massachusetts law faces fierce criticism from legal scholars, scientists, and prosecutors as you cannot prove a negative (disproving the existence of something that leaves no physical footprint, like a specific psychiatric defect at a precise moment in the past).
Because of this, the Massachusetts legal framework creates a deeply controversial paradox in practice.
The court system tries to bypass this scientific impossibility by changing the definitions. Legally, the state argues they aren’t requiring prosecutors to prove a negative. Instead, they insist that prosecutors are required to prove a positive behavioral state (the presence of rational, goal-directed, and controlled behavior).
However, from a purely analytical standpoint, Massachusetts law is legal sleight of hand as disproving a mental defect beyond a reasonable doubt requires the state to eliminate every alternative psychological explanation for why she acted. In science, you cannot definitively eliminate an alternative hypothesis without empirical data—and a past mental state cannot be physically measured.
The Result? A heavily tilted playing field in favor of the defense.
By requiring prosecutors to climb this nearly impossible hill, Massachusetts law essentially builds a structural bias into the trial. It allows the defense to exploit the natural limitations of science:
Because the state must completely disprove the insanity claim, the defense can simply introduce expert theories of "cognitive fog," "dream states," or "command hallucinations" which can produce infinite "What Ifs." The defense doesn't have to prove these medical theories are 100% true. They just have to show that they might be true. Because science cannot definitively rule out a past psychological state, there will always be a lingering "what ifs?"
The outcome of the Lindsay Clancy trial perfectly demonstrates the aforementioned. The prosecution brought concrete, empirical, real-world data to court: phone logs, Apple Maps calculations, GPS locations, and testimonies from the pharmacy manager. They argued, "Look at these physical facts. This is a rational mind."
Yet, because of the state's burden to essentially prove a negative, 11 out of 12 jurors decided that those concrete facts still weren't enough to totally disprove the possibility that a chaotic psychiatric condition was operating beneath the surface; they decided that a reasonable doubt remained.
|
|
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. |
“..For anyone who never studied a LOGIC course, it is impossible to prove a negative...”
Except for when it comes to one’s checking account. The bank will “prove it” pretty darn good....LOL
It's really that simple.
This is a court, not a logic test. You cannot prove ABSOLUTELY that she was sane enough to be held responsible, but the standard isn’t absolute proof. It is “Would a reasonable person have no REASONABLE DOUBT about her sanity?”
Which the state did prove, except they had 11 unreasonable jurors who decided, probably before the trial began, that “all women must be believed”. They had a judge and a prosecution that bent over backwards to allow the defense to muddy the waters. But I don’t think the trial itself had any impact on the verdict.
You had 11 jurors searching the Internet, reading about her supporters outside, who decided to stand in solidarity against “THE MAN” by insisting, no matter how evil the act, that all women must be believed!
The law of the insanity defense is a rabbit hole that one can spend a lot of time in. Each state implements it differently. Hence, the idea that the Lindsay Clancy trial is going to create a national wave of women killing their kids and getting off is probably overblown because, as this article points out, the Massachusetts law is unique. The Massachusetts law is pro-defense but I don’t think you can put the enactment of these laws into the standard “liberal vs. conservative” box. States like New York, Washington and Wisconsin have some of the most “pro-prosecution” insanity laws on the books. Some “conservative” Southern states have the “guilty but mentally ill rule” which favors the defense. Its a patchwork.
Massachusetts could set it up, if they so desired, that all academia, all science, all courtroom evidence, all positions of argumentation, etc, are required to be set up on a foundation where the onus (burden) of proof is upon the one(s) who make the claim (the defense) made about Clancy’s mental state.
It really is about state law.
Massachusetts law is set up upon a foundation where the burden of proof is not upon the defense as the state believes if the prosecution goes all in, they should be the ones to prove what her mental state was.
True, Massachusetts law on this particular issue is an outlier, which I should of noted but forgot to. But I do believe it can create fertile ground for a plethora of insanity defenses on a host of things.
“Yet, because of the state’s burden to essentially prove a negative, 11 out of 12 jurors decided that those concrete facts still weren’t enough to totally disprove the possibility that a chaotic psychiatric condition was operating beneath the surface; they decided that a reasonable doubt remained.”
According to multiple female jurors none of that even came in to play.
Out of their own mouths they admitted this was their opportunity to “make a statement”.
THAT is jury misconduct as far as I’m concerned.
“””Yet, because of the state’s burden to essentially prove a negative, 11 out of 12 jurors decided that those concrete facts still weren’t enough to totally disprove the possibility that a chaotic psychiatric condition was operating beneath the surface; they decided that a reasonable doubt remained.””””
Would 11 out of 12 jurors in a Conservative State come to the same conclusion as the 11 jurors from a very Leftist Massachusetts did?
I believe most States have similar laws regarding Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity/Mental Defect. If Clancy were tried in a in a different state would the result have been 11 for Not Guilty and 1 for Guilty?
The law in all 49 other states is different. In every state except Massachusetts, the defense must prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt
In Massachusetts, the state must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good comment.
It’s logically incoherent. In CA for example, the defense has the burden of proof on all affirmative defenses, but the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence so a bona fide defense is relatively easy to prove. There’s no logical reason to treat insanity differently
Let’s not put too much confidence in anything done by Ma lawmakers or citizens. After all, they repeatedly sent a drunk murderer to the Senate.
Yeah, you can be OK with a bastid — “well, he is OUR bastid!” But, really?
“they should be the ones to prove what her mental state was”
How? They provided evidence, to include mental health people who had treated her the day prior to the killings - and the jury rejected it. This was jury nullification of prison for women who murder their kids...
In essence, the argument I’ve encountered on line is “No sane woman would murder her kids, so she must be insane!” If you ask them about MEN who murder their kids, they reply, “Men always murder kids!” FWIW, the statistics show mothers murder young kids as often or MORE than men, while men murder more teens. But facts are not important to liberals, so how do you have a fair trial in a place like Boston or NYC?
I call it the Trump Dilemma - how do you have a worthwhile jury trial where most of the people on the jury are liberals who reject objective truth?
She was a trained and practicing nurse. But she killed her children!
Guilty!!!
@Mr Rogers
Again if the state believes “the prosecution [is going] all in, they [the defense] should [in actuality] be the ones to prove what her mental state was” [as is the case in almost all states.
The prosecution can bring a plethora of evidence concerning the husband’s errand he was sent out, what Clancy did or did not do online for mapping, distance, time of travel, etc, and the prosecution could then follow that up by saying “See, look at her plotting this!” and what good would/does it do if one “what if” after another is raised (”cognitive fog, dream stares, command hallucinations”) and brought up?
Then if the prosecution points out the husband was sent to a CVS further away instead of a nearer one, the defense can rebut by saying Clancy still cared enough to find out if what she wanted her husband to pick up was there at the one further away. Then if the prosecution counters why then not send her husband to the CVS that was nearer to the house, the defense can bring up she can slip in and out of mental sanity (”what ifs”).
In every state there is the presumption of innocence, which should be, yet nonetheless tilts things in favor of the defense. Massachusetts law, in the Clancy case, placing the burden of proving her to be sane at the time on the prosecution further tilts things in favor of the defense.
So imagine what would occur in a case where a powerful, wealthy politician or just a wealthy person period (with a star defense) was in her position? It would tilt things triple in the favor of the defense.
Well,there *is* state law...but there’s also jury nullification.A concept that,when in the hands of the right people,can be a very useful,if not essential,tool.
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.