I've seen a lot of opinions about this on Reddit, and none of them seem to be familiar with the law, which would help in this case. Whereas I think she is certainly guilty of the 3 counts of 1st degree murder, proving this in court can be difficult in some cases. The commonwealth has to not only prove premeditation, they have to also prove that Clancy was mentally competent during the crime. Massachusetts states that the burden of proof for an insanity defense is on the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time. The one juror who considered her guilty supposedly did not follow the law (which requires the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time). So now there will be an appeal for a retrial. Finding an unbiased jury might be impossible.
...they have to also prove that Clancy was mentally competent during the crime.
She planned it in advance. She sent her husband away. She took a call from whim while committing the murders and was competent enough to not sound like anything was wrong.
You don't get much clearer evidence of mental competence than that.
So, yes, he did follow the law. There is just a cohort of women who don't like it, because he couldn't be bullied, and refused to cater to the Feelings Brigade.
Also, she was never diagnosed with postpartum depression or psychosis, despite seeing more doctors than most people can afford.
My understanding (and I'm not familiar with Massachusetts's judicial system, so, grain of salt) is that it was a standard court case, and the Supreme Court was only involved in the last-minute hail mary attempt by the defense to stop the mistrial from being declared. The judge gave them one hour to appeal to the Supreme Court, there was a Zoom call, it was denied. The actual trial was standard criminal court, and the makeup of the jury was 9 women, 3 men, and the usual six alternates who, since the defense failed to yeet the juror, don't factor in at all.
Claiming women can legally kill their kids because of hormones is like saying men with testosterone can legally rape women and not get charged. It makes no sense. Charles Manson was crazy, but he was still found guilty and went to prison.
There's something to be said about the psychiatrists prescribing her tons of different meds which caused her insomnia. I think that's what caused her to lose it. She agreed to take the pills so it's no excuse. But I bring it up cuz those doctors did not follow protocol. Prescribe a pill, see how they do. Causes insomnia? Bad sign. Taper off. Try a different pill.
Charles Manson on drugs too. Possibly mkultra. Read Chaos by Tom O'Neil
Ironic he mentions speaking at a bar. That's where revolutions start. A pub is a public house. This is why they'd try to ban alcohol. We have the public internet which is heavily censored, same idea. Umberto missed the point. He was speaking to rich elites, telling them what they wanted to hear, give a reason to censor the internet. Or he was a boomer and just didn't understand it.
Log in
One man refused to be bullied into ignoring his conscience and judgment. It's pathetic that it was only one, but one was enough.
I've seen a lot of opinions about this on Reddit, and none of them seem to be familiar with the law, which would help in this case. Whereas I think she is certainly guilty of the 3 counts of 1st degree murder, proving this in court can be difficult in some cases. The commonwealth has to not only prove premeditation, they have to also prove that Clancy was mentally competent during the crime. Massachusetts states that the burden of proof for an insanity defense is on the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time. The one juror who considered her guilty supposedly did not follow the law (which requires the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time). So now there will be an appeal for a retrial. Finding an unbiased jury might be impossible.
She planned it in advance. She sent her husband away. She took a call from whim while committing the murders and was competent enough to not sound like anything was wrong.
You don't get much clearer evidence of mental competence than that.
So, yes, he did follow the law. There is just a cohort of women who don't like it, because he couldn't be bullied, and refused to cater to the Feelings Brigade.
Also, she was never diagnosed with postpartum depression or psychosis, despite seeing more doctors than most people can afford.
The other eight jurors were ignorant of the law and didn't have a conscience.
Eleven jurors. Nine women, three men.
I thought the Supreme Court juries were limited to 9? I got a feeling this case will cause women to have a postnatal abortion when they are hormonal.
Nothing in constitution says Supreme Court must be 9.
My understanding (and I'm not familiar with Massachusetts's judicial system, so, grain of salt) is that it was a standard court case, and the Supreme Court was only involved in the last-minute hail mary attempt by the defense to stop the mistrial from being declared. The judge gave them one hour to appeal to the Supreme Court, there was a Zoom call, it was denied. The actual trial was standard criminal court, and the makeup of the jury was 9 women, 3 men, and the usual six alternates who, since the defense failed to yeet the juror, don't factor in at all.
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror
Will PPD excuse any crime, no matter how big? https://img.gvid.tv/i/2W7zBupm.jpg
Claiming women can legally kill their kids because of hormones is like saying men with testosterone can legally rape women and not get charged. It makes no sense. Charles Manson was crazy, but he was still found guilty and went to prison.
There's something to be said about the psychiatrists prescribing her tons of different meds which caused her insomnia. I think that's what caused her to lose it. She agreed to take the pills so it's no excuse. But I bring it up cuz those doctors did not follow protocol. Prescribe a pill, see how they do. Causes insomnia? Bad sign. Taper off. Try a different pill.
Charles Manson on drugs too. Possibly mkultra. Read Chaos by Tom O'Neil
She saw 6 different doctors and was on 13 types of drugs.
Besides, we are making stupid people famous now:
https://img.gvid.tv/i/27vYWjtP.jpg
Ironic he mentions speaking at a bar. That's where revolutions start. A pub is a public house. This is why they'd try to ban alcohol. We have the public internet which is heavily censored, same idea. Umberto missed the point. He was speaking to rich elites, telling them what they wanted to hear, give a reason to censor the internet. Or he was a boomer and just didn't understand it.
That's not the claim.
What is the claim?