0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 trial verdict predictions
Posted on 9/2/26 at 4:54 pm to KosmoCramer
Posted on 9/2/26 at 4:54 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
That was a question after the Karen Read case, and I believe they can request it.
Or they could just wait for their TikToks.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 4:56 pm to Ingeniero
Yes, and no.
It is generally considered to be unduly coercive for a judge to ask about a possible partial verdict.
It is generally considered to be unduly coercive for a judge to ask about a possible partial verdict.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:06 pm to rt3
quote:
Dr. Mack will be blasted into the sun
He’s already resigned his job with the consulting psych firm.
I have to say that I was leaning towards NGI, because I don’t believe that she did it out of malice. I think that she thought that she was the only one who could take care of her kids.
But that doesn’t mean that she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:08 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
It is generally considered to be unduly coercive for a judge to ask about a possible partial verdict.
After the trial? It would seem after he dismisses them due to hung jury/mistrial, he has no authority to coerce them into anything, especially limiting their 1st amendment rights. DURING the trial? Of course he can’t ask.
Unless I somehow misread your post or the one you were replying to.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:12 pm to redandright
quote:This is all that matters for NGI. People are insane all over the place but they can still discern right from wrong in the legal sense. It’s why the psychosis and voice is so important to her case. Her problem is that she made a plan, she never heard voices before or since, and she was never diagnosed with a disorder that would ultimately cause her to lose grip on reality.
But that doesn’t mean that she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:13 pm to redandright
quote:
I have to say that I was leaning towards NGI, because I don’t believe that she did it out of malice
What she did is the definition of malice. Just say that you think she had the right to do it because she was their mother.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:14 pm to DrrTiger
Malice isn’t a qualifier for murder either. That poster is a dumbass and is as bad as her supporters.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:40 pm to GeneralLee
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. What's hilarious and sad is that this would probably work.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:52 pm to ILurkThereforeIAm
quote:Unless Massachusetts requires unanimity from the jury, I fear you might be right. My only hope, though slight, is she is incarcerated for the rest of her life.
Not guilty by reason of insanity. She’ll end up in a mental health facility or state hospital for the foreseeable future.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:57 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
After the trial?
I assumed by the use of the word polling it was being ask if the judge could poll intra-trial. Technically, all polling is intra-trial because a typical poll is done after the jury verdict is read but prior to the verdict being recorded. At that time, the trial is still going on. I thought the question was could the judge poll the jury at the time the foreperson was telling him they were deadlocked. My answer is based on that.
What the jury says outside the court post-trial is a separate matter and not considered "polling".
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:30 pm to Obtuse1
When this psychopath walks, I look forward to getting gaslit about how we live in a patriarchy by the exact same women who defended her.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:39 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Obtuse1
Posted on 9/2/26 at 8:36 pm to Hot Carl
Posted on 9/3/26 at 6:21 am to GeneralLee
Anyone got a comprehensive summary of the evidence / case that is objective? I’ve been loosely following this circus but went to my sister’s last night (who has been going off the far left looneybin lately), and she was spouting off all sorts of stuff that sounded like such nonsense but I couldn’t come back with anything concrete. Anyone got anything detailed that spells it all out. The wife strangled the kids and admitted to doing it, right?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:25 am to NolaLovingClemsonFan
quote:
Anyone got a comprehensive summary of the evidence / case that is objective? I’ve been loosely following this circus but went to my sister’s last night (who has been going off the far left looneybin lately), and she was spouting off all sorts of stuff that sounded like such nonsense but I couldn’t come back with anything concrete. Anyone got anything detailed that spells it all out. The wife strangled the kids and admitted to doing it, right?
Is there any particular part she keeps going back to you're looking to refute specifically?
Yes, she admitted to it in multiple court filings
1 being at the beginning of this trial where both sides agreed to the stipulation that she did the act so all evidence proving she did the act didn't need to be shown since it would be redundant
This trial was specifically focused on her mental state at the time of the murders
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:07 am to rt3
quote:
This trial was specifically focused on her mental state at the time of the murders
This keeps getting repeated but it's not true. This is her criminal trial. Just because an arrest warrant was issued and a grand jury said there should be a trial is not an automatic assumption of guilt.
There is an option of "not guilty" here. The judge has said repeatedly that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Commonwealth had to prove that a) she did it at all, and b) if she did it, was she of sound mind.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:16 am to HouseMom
quote:
This keeps getting repeated but it's not true.
It's not technically true, but her own lawyers have said as much in open court. There is zero chance she's getting a straight not guilty verdict.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:17 am to HouseMom
quote:
There is an option of "not guilty" here. The judge has said repeatedly that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Commonwealth had to prove that a) she did it at all, and b) if she did it, was she of sound mind.
Technically true
But... you see... the admission as a stipulation is still there for the exact reason I stated
She has admitted to doing the act in court on the record in this trial... that is indisputable
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 9:19 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:20 am to HouseMom
quote:
Just because an arrest warrant was issued and a grand jury said there should be a trial is not an automatic assumption of guilt.
No one says that it is.
quote:
There is an option of "not guilty" here. The judge has said repeatedly that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Commonwealth had to prove that a) she did it at all, and b) if she did it, was she of sound mind.
The only not guilty option is not guilt by reason of insanity. To give you a quick 1L course crimes contain two parts, mens rea and actus reas. There is no doubt, and it was admitted to, that she did the action (actus reus) but what is up for debate is if she is legally culpable because of her mental state to be found guilty of the crime (mens rea).
So no there is no option of "not guilty" because she didn't do it, that is a fantasy of crazy women online.
quote:
HouseMom
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:29 am to lionward2014
quote:
So no there is no option of "not guilty" because she didn't do it, that is a fantasy of crazy women online.
Yes or no. The jury can come back with a plain "not guilty."
Page 24 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News