- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Clancy Jury Is At 11 - 1?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:46 pm to SallysHuman
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:46 pm to SallysHuman
quote:Not to mention times have clearly changed. Certainly there will be bad actors (women) in the system looking to sign off on her release.
Andrea Yates was convicted. Overturned.. then NGRI and confined. She has not sought release, and she’s not in Massachusetts. Mass has totally different guidelines.
You can’t know how long she’d be confined and you absolutely do not know the laws in Massachusetts regarding a successful NGRI defense.
1
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:53 pm to ronniep1
Given the note, I have to think it’s 11-1 in favor of not guilty.
As in, there is a juror who the other jurors think has reasonable doubt, but won’t vote for not guilty based on that reasonable doubt, which is what the law requires.
If it was 11-1 in favor of guilty, the 1 currently favoring not guilty would have to remove reasonable doubt from their minds, which seems a lot less likely.
I dont like it either but I think tomorrow we get either a not guilty by insanity verdict or a mistrial. I doubt the jury comes back after Labor Day.
As in, there is a juror who the other jurors think has reasonable doubt, but won’t vote for not guilty based on that reasonable doubt, which is what the law requires.
If it was 11-1 in favor of guilty, the 1 currently favoring not guilty would have to remove reasonable doubt from their minds, which seems a lot less likely.
I dont like it either but I think tomorrow we get either a not guilty by insanity verdict or a mistrial. I doubt the jury comes back after Labor Day.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:58 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:There have been indications that it's a male juror. No way that a man is holding out a not guilty plea vs all women guilty in that cuck state.
It makes more sense that it would be one rogue juror saying they won’t say she’s guilty
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:02 pm to SallysHuman
quote:for whether or not they get off by not guilty by reason of insanity. Not for the process after. They both have a prosecutor, a judge and doctors all involved in that process. If you think the prosecutor is going to let her walk quickly, I don’t know what to tell you. You can think that I guess. They’re trying to lock her up for life right now.
Mass has totally different guidelines.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:06 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:it’s still a prosecutor that has to say in the final decision. Do you think they’d be trying to lock her up right now if they didn’t think she needed to be locked up?
Not to mention times have clearly changed. Certainly there will be bad actors (women) in the system looking to sign off on her release.
It’s very easy to argue that you’re still a danger. Whether this came out of nowhere or whether it was something that she had been working towards. It’s still very easy. All they have to do is say that she could still be a danger.
Is it my perfect scenario, obviously not. I want her locked up forever. But I think it’s important for everyone to understand what’s actually happening here.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:07 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:
If you think the prosecutor is going to let her walk quickly, I don’t know what to tell you. You can think that I guess. They’re trying to lock her up for life right now.
Here’s a copypasta that explains it better than I can.
“The prosecutor can petition and argue for commitment. The prosecutor does not get to decide whether she remains committed.
After NGRI, §16 requires a separate commitment process. The Commonwealth has to establish the legal requirements for commitment, and the court makes that determination. If those findings aren’t made, the statute says the petition is dismissed and the person discharged.
So “the prosecutor isn’t going to let her walk” isn’t how it works. The DA can oppose release until they’re blue in the face; they don’t get a veto over whether Clancy continues to meet the statutory commitment standard.
And “they’re trying to lock her up for life right now” is irrelevant. They’re currently prosecuting her for murder. An NGRI verdict means they lost that criminal-responsibility question. What happens afterward is a different proceeding under Chapter 123 with a different legal question.”
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:09 pm to SallysHuman
You do know that the prosecutor can bring their own doctors, right? This is not just some one-sided thing. I understand that she is able to get hearings. But the prosecutor it’s going to have their own doctors that are gonna be saying that she’s still a danger they’re gonna be using their processes. It’s not as easy as you guys think it is.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:10 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:
All they have to do is say that she could still be a danger.
No, it has to be proven, not simply said.
If Clancy gets NGRI and during her evaluation or subsequent terms of confinement becomes “sane” they’ve no legal basis nor obligation to keep her. She’s already (in this scenario) absolutely free of any criminal consequence.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:12 pm to SallysHuman
It’s not about whether she is sane. It’s about whether or not she can still pose a danger. You’re not understanding it.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:13 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:
You do know that the prosecutor can bring their own doctors, right? This is not just some one-sided thing. I understand that she is able to get hearings. But the prosecutor it’s going to have their own doctors that are gonna be saying that she’s still a danger they’re gonna be using their processes. It’s not as easy as you guys think it is.
What if LC is now “sane”? What if the defense is correct that this was an acute, time-limited postpartum psychosis that has resolved?
The prosecutor can hire every doctor in Massachusetts. What are those doctors supposed to truthfully testify to if she no longer meets the commitment criteria?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:14 pm to SallysHuman
I don’t know what to tell you if you think mental illness just goes away lol. She’s always going to be mentally ill. And she will always pose a danger in the future based on the fact that this happened. She was normal living in society. she had a normal husband.
It’s about whether or not she could pose a danger in the future.
It’s about whether or not she could pose a danger in the future.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:15 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:
t’s not about whether she is sane. It’s about whether or not she can still pose a danger. You’re not understanding it.
No, YOU aren’t understanding it.
Massachusetts §8 requires BOTH:
1. Mental illness; and
2. A likelihood of serious harm if discharged.
It isn’t “could she still pose a danger?” in isolation. If she no longer meets the mental-illness requirement for commitment, the fact that somebody believes she could be dangerous does not authorize indefinite confinement.
Read §8. The word is AND, not OR.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:16 pm to SallysHuman
Mental illness. Not necessarily insane. Lots of people have mental illness and they’re not deemed insane. There’s a lot of murderers in jail who have mental illnesses. Why are you having a hard time understanding lol
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:20 pm to DustInTheWind
Dana Schlosser murdered her child in 2004, was found NGRI in Texas.
She was released to outpatient status after 4 years.
Constance Fisher killed three of her children in 1954, was found NGRI.
She was released in 1959. She then killed a 4th child.
Deanna Laney killed her two children in 2003, was found NGRI.
She was released in 2012.
These women who kill their children go to a mental institution for less time than many non-violent crimes.
She was released to outpatient status after 4 years.
Constance Fisher killed three of her children in 1954, was found NGRI.
She was released in 1959. She then killed a 4th child.
Deanna Laney killed her two children in 2003, was found NGRI.
She was released in 2012.
These women who kill their children go to a mental institution for less time than many non-violent crimes.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:26 pm to ronniep1
Say it's one left to get an insanity plea and they cave....
Down the road, if Lindsay Clancy ever gets released and the ex decides to end her for killing his children, could he also get off using an insanity plea?
..or will those same women supporting her today call him a murderer?
Down the road, if Lindsay Clancy ever gets released and the ex decides to end her for killing his children, could he also get off using an insanity plea?
..or will those same women supporting her today call him a murderer?
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:27 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:
Mental illness. Not necessarily insane. Lots of people have mental illness and they’re not deemed insane. There’s a lot of murderers in jail who have mental illnesses. Why are you having a hard time understanding lol
Mental illness AND likelihood of harm is the basis to determine her confinement at each commitment/recommitment proceeding.
Postpartum psychosis is temporary in nature- especially so for what her defense is claiming… I can assure you she’s not going to be postpartum psychotic forever.
At each evaluation/hearing they will have to prove she is BOTH mentally ill AND has a likelihood of harming herself or others. Being mentally ill isn't enough.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:36 pm to FliesByNight
quote:
That would also be a bad precedent to remove a juror because they aren't going along with the majority.
Which is basically what the judge said when he denied the motion to replace the juror. He said he couldn't, and retain any semblance of fairness, replace a jury member to side with the defense.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:38 pm to Scruffy
quote:recommitted in 2010. Still committed
Dana Schlosser murdered her child in 2004, was found NGRI in Texas.
quote:you can cherry pick some cases if you want. And I understand why people don’t like the verdict if that’s what it’s gonna be. I don’t either. But she’s not getting out of jail anytime soon. This is way too high profile. This is more on par with Yates.
A 2017 look at hospital data found a lot of long-stay NGRI patients, not all of them murder cases: • Texas: 27 people hospitalized more than 15 years • Florida: 24 over 15 years • Connecticut: 40 • Georgia: 43 • New York and Washington: about 60 each
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:39 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:She was still initially released.
recommitted in 2010.
She should never have been released.
quote:She isn’t even going to go to jail.
But she’s not getting out of jail anytime soon. This is way too high profile. This is more on par with Yates.
And I bet she will be out of the mental institution within 5 years.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:41 pm to Scruffy
We shall see. But the percentages don’t say that.
Hopefully there’s a misstrial and we get a new jury that finds her guilty.
Hopefully there’s a misstrial and we get a new jury that finds her guilty.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 5:42 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News