Below is my column on the attack unleashed by defense counsel Kevin Reddington on the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. As I said immediately during the coverage, I considered the attack utterly reprehensible and worthy of intervention by Judge William Sullivan. Reddington went out of his way to fuel the anger against this one juror, a dangerous and unprofessional play to the mob.
Here is the column:
“I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Those words from Kevin Reddington on the steps of the Plymouth, Massachusetts Courthouse were part of a diatribe against the “guy” who was reportedly the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The scene was a fitting end to a visceral trial, but it added a vindictive element that should prompt Judge William Sullivan to call out the seasoned defense attorney.
After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was “no time to gloat,” Reddington bragged repeatedly about “crushing” District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that, in the trial, no one said a single negative thing about his client as a mother — ignoring that little matter of the three young children whom she had strangled to death, one by one.
But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only three males on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.
The fact that this is one of the three male jurors only ramped up the rage. This case prompted a striking gender divide between men and women, with many women expressing sympathy for Clancy and anger at the system for failing her.
For Reddington and many viewers, the hung jury was less “Twelve Angry Men” and more like “One Angry Man.” Indeed, in addition to attacking the juror, women outside of the courthouse heckled Cruz as he tried to speak to the press, shouting that he “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”
Reddington followed up by saying that Cruz really did not care about the children (because he looked down to read their names). He also accused the holdout jurors of wasting the time of the jury, complaining “that guy stole seven weeks from those jurors.”
It was an ironic twist on the 1957 classic. In that movie, Juror number eight (Henry Fonda) was repeatedly attacked for “wasting time” and not yielding to the majority — until he ultimately convinced all of his peers.
Earlier in the day, Reddington had asked a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice for an emergency order to force Sullivan not to declare a mistrial, and instead to remove the holdout in favor of an alternate. It was an utterly meritless effort, but Reddington used the filing to further denounce the juror. He compared the juror’s refusal to vote for his client as akin to leaving a racist on a jury. In this case, he suggested that the “guy” was a virtual anti-disability version of “Bull” Connor or some deranged “ableist.”
The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another.
Take the 1957 classic movie. Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant. But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability.
Imagine the movie’s outcome if Reddington’s approach had been accepted in 1957, where Fonda could be pulled into court, questioned about his intransigence, and ultimately replaced with an alternate in order to flip the vote.
For all of the anger it has generated, the Clancy trial shows the best of our justice system. We have a system in which a single juror can stand against not only the rest of the jury, but against the world. The trial showed zealous counsel on both sides and a conscientious judge who ensured a fair trial despite the powerful emotions in society.
You can disagree with this juror and the outcome but still celebrate that our legal system comes down not to judges or lawyers, but to simple citizens doing justice in thousands of cases a year. It comes down to whether every juror can vote not for a popular choice, but for a moral one.
That is why some of us were so shocked by Reddington’s public attack on this one juror. This is not who we are supposed to be as officers of the court. We stand in the path of the mob, not leading it. In another great movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Gregory Peck captured that role from the novel most vividly as Atticus Finch, standing before a jail to stop a lynch mob.
Finch showed that the strength of any legal system is ultimately only as strong as each individual’s ability to stand alone. He tells his daughter Scout, “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Abortions rights equal reproductive rights. Am I missing something here?
Another law professor, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, has referenced Professor Turley’s article in a New York Post article and he agrees with Turley’s view of the shameful conduct of the defense attorney entirely.
He also suggests that the attacked juror might have a cause of action against the lawyer. The man likely will be doxed and targeted. Good luck seating principled juries after that.
https://nypost.com/2026/09/07/opinion/lindsay-clancys-lawyer-bashed-our-juries-and-battered-justice
I hope that is the almost universal opinion of the American bar, but these are crazy days. It would help if the bar association stepped in with a disciplinary action. Some suthority needs to say to lawyers, “Don’t do this!”
“My body, my choice.”
Is there something fundamentally wrong with women?
Not all women, just liberal women, which is why they are known as the destroyers of civilizations.
#. Targeting jurors publically is the issue. Reddington used women in this case to gin up a ready-made mob.
This trial has many unanswered questions. It will probably progress to a plea bargain?
988 is suicide hotline. In such unstable times it’s wisdom to watch family and friends for mental health issues. People are precious.
This is such a messy, horrific triple homicide — attempted suicide case, that I have trouble sorting out the most important legal issues. Did she know right from wrong? To what extent does premeditation (i.e. her successful plan to get the husband out of the house) demonstrate her mental capacity?
Maybe the situation was that she did know right from wrong, and she could control others, but she just couldn’t control herself. She couldn’t stop herself from doing wrong by killing her children.
You know, lots of murderers can’t control themselves. Probably most of them. They still end up in prison. Their victims are still dead. Should the very gendered defense of her having had a baby 8 months prior qualify her for a not guilty verdict?
With regard to the prescriptions, I am aware that prescribers sometimes mistakenly diagnose patients with simple depression, when the actual condition is bipolar disorder or schizo-affective disorder. They write scripts for Prozac, for example, which tips their patients into mania.
That would have been a lot for one defense attorney to prove. Even if that was the truth.
Dr. Phil made a statement, not about this patient, but in general, urging practitioners to recognize certain symptom reports by postpartum women as psychiatric emergencies dictating immediate separation of Mom from baby/children, and extended residential treatment of mentally ill Mom.
That didn’t happen here, because the defendant was a nurse and well educated and probably masking like crazy. Nobody recognized that she actually was going crazy.
Turley decries the “dangerous and unprofessional” statements of Clancy’s attorney–who, by rights, won the case. Turley claims that Clancy’s attorney: “…effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.” Not so fast. There’s only all the difference in the world between not being convinced of the defense’s arguments and being biased and prejudiced against women and those with mental illness as the reason for holding out. It is outrageously ironic for Turley to attempt to compare Clancy with “12 Angry Men”, the film in which the majority of jurors in that case wanted a guilty verdict because they were prejudiced against the black defendant. The holdout in “12 Angry Men” was Henry Fonda’s character who believed the young man innocent and fought for his acquittal. We have the reverse here–but for the same underlying reason–prejudice, not logic or reason.
According to the other jurors, the holdout in the Clancy case refused to follow the Judge’s instruction on the prosecutor’s burden to prove criminality “beyond a reasonable doubt”, because he was prejudiced against people with mental illness. There’s no doubt that Clancy was mentally ill. She tried to get help, was briefly hospitalized, and took a large number of psychiatric medications. Whenever she reached out to her psychiatrist, she got a nurse practitioner. She felt driven by her mental illness to kill her children and herself. It’s called “postpartum psychosis”–and it is a real thing. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia about the disorder, which has been known about for centuries:
“Postpartum psychosis (PPP), also known as puerperal psychosis or peripartum psychosis, involves the abrupt onset of psychotic symptoms shortly following childbirth, typically within two weeks of delivery.[2] However, women are at risk for developing symptoms for several months after birth.[3]
Symptoms may include delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech (e.g., incoherent speech), or abnormal motor behavior (e.g., catatonia).[4] Other symptoms frequently associated with PPP include confusion, disorganized thought, severe difficulty sleeping, variations of mood disorders (including depression, agitation, mania, or a combination of the above), as well as cognitive features such as consciousness that comes and goes (waxing and waning) or disorientation.[2][5] Given the variety of symptoms associated with PPP, a thorough consideration of other psychiatric and non-psychiatric (or organic) causes must be ruled out through a combination of diagnostic labwork and imaging, as well as clinical presentation.[6]”
Turley fantasizes: “the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability.” Uh, Turley, did “the sole juror” ever speak to the press, was he interviewed, or is this just the MAGA spin you are paid to spew? Turley doesn’t know any more than the rest of us about this man’s motivation, other than what was disclosed by the other jurors–which is that he rejected the Judge’s charge that the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mental illness was not the reason Clancy killed her children. MAGA media was all over this case saying, essentially: “she admitted killing her children–what else do you need to know”? It is a truly sad thing that there is so much ignorance about and prejudice against mental illness in this country and the role it plays in criminal justice.
Turley KNOWS that “culpability” requires proof that the act of killing the children was the product of EVIL–not mental illness AND that the prosecution bore the burden to prove Clancy killed her children because she is EVIL–not mentally ill, and that her evil intentions had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Turley dismisses evidence that Clancy was a good mother by claiming that she couldn’t have been because she killed her children. A fundamentally evil person does not properly care for her children and then suddenly change course after giving birth to a third child and then kills them and tries to kill herself. Clancy was, herself, an OB-GYN nurse, which is evidence of someone with a nurturing nature. Turley goes way overboard defending this prejudiced juror: “You can disagree with this juror and the outcome but still celebrate that our legal system comes down not to judges or lawyers, but to simple citizens doing justice in thousands of cases a year. It comes down to whether every juror can vote not for a popular choice, but for a moral one.” If the other jurors are correct that this prejudiced man held out because he refused to accept the judge’s instruction, he KNOWS this is NOT “doing justice” or that refusing to acquit her was a “moral” choice. Turley also knows that the MAGA crowd he is paid to provide daily affirmation for doesn’t know any better. And so, if any lawyer is “dangerous and unprofessional”, IMHO, it’s Turley, by making up reasons for the holdout’s refusal to acquit and attacking the defense attorney. The Judge should have dismissed the holdout because he violated his oath to follow the legal instructions as given by the judge.
Certainly not innocent. Maybe insane. Probably guilty along with 11 jurors.
You have a fundamental lack of understanding of how criminal justice works. If she is not guilty of deliberate murder–which is how she was charged—-she’s entitled to be acquitted. The prosecution had the burden to: 1. charge her properly–they chose deliberate murder instead of a lesser charge with which they might have had more success–but they chose the ultimate crime of deliberate murder. But for the holdout, she would have been acquitted because the prosecution did not meet its burden to prove that the killings were due to deliberate murder; 2. the burden to prove deliberate murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The holdout juror admitted doubt, but, like the preaching of MAGA media, he couldn’t get past the fact that she killed her children, which is, admittedly, a heinous thing to do, but he would not follow the judge’s instruction on reasonable doubt, according to other jurors. The defense showed that she did what she did because of voices–hallucinations–and that was why 11 would have acquitted her.
How to destroy your credibility in two easy sentences:
“If she is not guilty of *deliberate murder*–which is how she was charged . . .” The prosecution “chose *deliberate murder* instead of a lesser charge . . .” (emphases added)
Clancy was *not* charged with just first-degree murder. The lesser included charges were second-degree murder and manslaughter. The jury had those latter two options. And manslaughter is *not* “deliberate murder.”
Insanity is a defense to each of these lesser-included offenses. If she was driven to kill her children because of hallucinations, which is what multiple witnesses testified to, she still should be acquitted.
That assumes the *reason* for the not-guilty verdict would be insanity. There could be other reasons.
Anonymous, what evidence do you have that:
A. The other jurors believed that the holdout was biased against the mentally ill; or
B. That even if they did believe this, they were correct in their belief?
Why do you deny that the holdout could have concluded in good faith that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt (even if not beyond all possible doubt)? Nothing in the foreman’s note that has been made public rules this out. All it said was that the holdout stated he had doubts but would not conclude that any were reasonable doubts. As the judge observed, not all doubts are reasonable doubts, which is why he decided not to make further inquiry into the holdout’s views.
A. Because they said so—over and over and over again over the course of 5 days.
B. They spent weeks with this man–if anyone knows WHY, it was the fellow jurors, who repeatedly advised the judge that they couldn’t come to an agreement.
It’s not “good faith” when the reason for holding out is that you don’t want to follow the judge’s instructions.
Here are citations from the trial:
“I read the instruction … the fact that I perhaps didn’t give it my full inflection, I’m sorry about that, I’m not an actor,” he hollered.
The tense dispute followed Reddington’s bombshell inadvertent revelation that the holdout juror is a man after referring to the panelist several times by the pronoun “he.”
Reddington argued the juror has made statements “acknowledging doubt” but “refuses to apply the verdict” by the letter of the law.
“Clearly, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday … under oath looked you in the eye and lied,” the defense attorney said.
“That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him,” Reddington went on, revealing the juror’s gender for the first time.
The jury in the case, which has garnered widespread national attention, is composed of nine women and three men.
Reddington lost his bid to have the holdout juror individually questioned by the judge, who responded, “In this case here, I see no showing for a need for an inquiry for this particular juror.”
Prosecutors pushed for no additional questioning of the jury and asked they be allowed to resume deliberations, arguing the juror in question has “no indication of lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence, and no indication of inability to deliberate.”
Reddington disagreed, however, claiming the juror has a personal issue interfering with their ability to fairly deliberate, and urged he be replaced.
However Sullivan denied the request on the grounds that “the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error.”
The jury told Sullivan it was deadlocked on Tuesday and Wednesday, prompting him to issue an instruction known as Tuey-Rodriqugez, which states that a verdict is “preferable” before sending them back to deliberate further.
The jury is tasked with deciding whether Clancy, 36, should be held criminally responsible for strangling her three kids Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at their Duxbury, Mass. home on Jan. 24, 2023.”
Anonymous, these citations prove nothing except that the defense lawyer wants to present the holdout juror in a particular way to help his client get acquitted.
You might ask yourself WHY the prosecution didn’t want the judge to question the man–the reason is obvious because the other jurors told the judge the reason. I’ve been in cases where issues regarding a juror arose, and the judge ALWAYS questioned the juror alone, without other jurors present, over the issue–like someone who suddenly recalled that they had previously been friends with a party or a key witness that they didn’t recall knowing during voir dire, but which came up later on. The other jurors made clear that he was refusing to follow the instruction about reasonable doubt–and that he DID have doubts about her guilt. It was the other 11 jurors who “present[ed] the juror in a particular way.” It’s not like they didn’t try. I’ve never seen a judge make a jury keep deliberating after they tell him, over and over again and for days on end, that ongoing deliberations were futile.
Just because you’ve never seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The instruction given by the judge has a long history in Massachusetts, going back to the 1800s, which is how it got its name. Do you live in Massachusetts? You’re probably not aware but the rules on questioning jurors vary state by state. And just because another juror accused the holdout of bias doesn’t make it so. We need to hear from the juror himself before we can conclude what his thought process was. You’re ready to believe at the drop of a hat anything that you *want* to believe is true, but you would do well to occasionally stop and ask yourself if there really is enough reliable unbiased evidence to support your conclusion. “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. -Paul Simon, The Boxer
The defense attorney and the jurors who wanted to acquit were biased sources of what was going through the holdout juror’s mind. Unless we hear the juror’s internal thought process from him, we don’t know exactly what was in his mind. The law presumes jurors follow the judge’s instructions, and the burden is on the challenger to prove otherwise. We can’t base a definitive conclusion to the contrary on such biased sources. And as has been pointed out before, a juror can have a doubt without having a reasonable doubt as that term is defined in the law.
WHO says that the other 11 were “biased”? In my experience (and I’ve been on a jury myself), jurors DO try their best to be fair to everyone. I was amazed at how much attention my fellow jurors paid to the evidence and their impressions of credibility of witnesses, including, in the case I sat on, where we didn’t believe the police officers. The jurors who deliberated day after day, hour after hour, KNOW what he said and WHY he refused to change his mind—he refused to accept the concept of “reasonable doubt”, even though he had actual doubt.
Your personal jury experience does not apply to every jury in American history. The 11 jurors were obviously frustrated with the holdout, as they deliberated for days and the holdout was the only reason they couldn’t go home. You want to have it both ways, saying we can’t fathom what was in the minds of the 11 but we know what was in the mind of the one. You want to say the 11 were truthful and their motives were pure as the wind-driven snow . . . because you agree with their verdict, but we can say for sure that the holdout was a liar and refusing to obey the judge’s instructions, because you disagree with his verdict. There simply is not enough evidence to reach those conclusions. It is just as plausible that the holdout saw the evidence differently than the 11 and concluded that there was no reasonable doubt about Clancy’s guilt. That is not unusual. There are hung juries hundreds of times a year for that very reason.
You chastise Turley on the basis that the holdout juror didn’t speak to the press. Then you do the same thing by pretending to know that the same juror violated his oath to follow the law. Did the holdout juror personally tell you his thought process?
HE TOLD THE OTHER JURORS WHY he would not acquit–he didn’t accept the concept of “reasonable doubt”, admitting that he had doubt. The other jurors reported this to the judge.
No, he had a doubt but not a reasonable doubt as defined by the judge.
The cuts on her neck and wrists were superficial. She’s a nurse. Is that reasonable doubt that she intended to die?
The character of the defendant in the movie “12 Angry Men” was portrayed by an actor who was not Black. The actor’s name was John Savoca.
You are insane. Or maybe you write this crap because you plan to kill someone and want an albi of insanity so you can get off?
Reading yesterday’s and today’s posts, I am quite saddened by the reality that the last thoughts of those panicked poor children were likely, “Why is Mommy hurting me?”
Whereas, sick Luna likely thought, “[Daddy] and [Mommy] are here with me. It’s going to be Okay.”
Those were Chris Watts’s little girls’ last words about him choking them to death, but does anyone think he should have been absolved of criminal liability? Clancy specifically sent her husband on an errand so she would have time to kill her children. I don’t care if she heard a voice. A person can say “no” to a voice. The 11 jurors did not act reasonably, IMO.
I think you just said that Lindsay Clancy is as guilty as sin, that she committed homicide, and that she deserves the attendant severe penalty.
If so, a hearty hear, hear!
Everyone who commits homicide is mentally challenged in some aspect or facet or to a greater or lesser degree.
Why can’t these women simply abandon their children to effect adoption?
Just leave for crying out loud!
Yes, I believe I did say that. And not just in this case but in all cases of murder-suicide, what gets me is that the perp could have just elected not to do the murder part of it. I don’t condone suicide for anyone, but if you’re going to commit it, just refrain from also killing somebody else. Why is that so difficult? You’re going to be dead anyway so why not just let the other person live?
Lin, I read that she left the little boy hanging from the rafters. That suggests she had a measure of BTK depravity in her soul. Those jurors would have forgiven even a taste of Dahmer in her.
Ah, a hate crime.
The little said, mommy I’m sorry? He thought he was being punished?
I heard this.
Reddington should receive some form of discipline from the Massachusetts bar. His threats and provocations of violence toward a juror he knew would be identifiable violated the rules of professional conduct. and it undermined public confidence in the legal system. If the MA bar doesn’t discipline him, it will become a national disgrace.
I’m not talking about criminal prosecution but professional discipline. When a person seeks a law license he agrees not to violate the rules of professional conduct, so it’s not a First Amendment issue.
Let the juror complain under RPC 8.4, you could fit darn near anything under that one its so vague. Sal Sar
I hope that social contagion doesn’t extend to killing one’s children for attention.
It likely will happen but I hope not to a great extent.
There are examples. Have you noticed how many celebrity women boast of having transgender children?
I think before that it was how proud they were to have gay children.
Most probably had neither.
Munchausen’s by proxy is almost exclusively a female issue. Mothers hurt their children so the mother gets sympathy and attention.
A number of years ago a school in the Northeast allowed a pregnant girl to continue in school where attention was lavished on her. Suddenly many other girls in the same school became pregnant and seeking attention.
I think this may be part of the evolved nature of women. Madam de Stael once said something like, “Men desire women and women desire the desire [attention] of men.” She was very smart and likely had a point.
I think in a trial like this, it would have helped to keep psychology in mind. Try to shape the consensus to this woman is a monster whom nobody will like and if you want to be liked you won’t like her either.
Is it law? No.
Is it evidence? No.
Is it Kafkaesque (The Trial)? Yes.
Can it work? Yes.
Young, the social contagion has already started. A woman in Illinois did a copycat killing of her child, reportedly inspired by Lindsay Clancy,
Oldman,
Horrible but not surprising.
I think about 60% of university students are now women and the university experience in the courses they choose is likely detrimental to mental health. Too much focus on feelings.
It is likely not an accident that so many of this monster’s supporters are white, well-off, graduates. I doubt that women in real courses, math and science or a legit history course, are so susceptible to social contagion.
I would have included law with the sciences but I just read Harvard law school has a quiet room with stress relieving toys so law is going in the toilet.
Any student who needs such a facility should never be a lawyer.
That student is basically an aged infant.
I just read that a woman in New York died shielding her children from gunfire. She’s a hero and a genuine mother. God bless her.
Young, there are a handful of conservative law schools where the law is still alive.
@oldman
Hoping it’s not the next ‘cool’ Tik Tok meme. These people are sick.
@Young
‘Munchausen’s by proxy is almost exclusively a female issue. Mothers hurt their children so the mother gets sympathy and attention.’
Yup, and that’s what I believe it is. These radicalized folks (regardless of sex) are simply no longer well; and they have been driven mad largely by their own thinking. It’s something to behold, watching someone scream or murder at a figment.
Most of the comments here today focus on Clancy’s guilt or innocence. I believe the good professor was trying to focus on Reddington.
To that end, I would add that Reddington’s intentional “slip” of the holdout juror as a male comes from an experienced litigator (Reddington) who knows that a jury heavily loaded with females (9) is likely to [often subconsciously] include sympathetic emotional reasoning into deliberations. I’m pretty viscerally certain that Reddington would select a female to replace the holdout male. For that alone, I believe Reddington should face criticism.
To the other end, I align mostly with comments from Daniel, who queries on what she knew and what she did WHEN. It is clear from the record that Clancy suffered episodic psychotic ideation, –intertwined with long periods of episodic competence. A person suffering from episodic psychotic ideation can be found competent and criminally liable in between these psychotic episodes. During “competent” periods, she certainly was capable of “recall” as to her homicidal thoughts. I would want to know how much urgency she gave to advising her treating physicians that she was still having these dangerous homicidal thoughts, –or even why she didn’t just S.T.O.P. thinking about it and immediately present to ER and say, “something is wrong here. I am still feeling ______________.”
Lin, thanks for reading. My focus is on the “male voice” which she claims to have felt impossible to resist. (Notice that the voice is said explicitly to have been male, so the concept appeals to the narrative of female victimisation.)
The voice appeared only once. This in itself was said to be unusual in cases of psychosis. I heard at one point that it was after the husband had been sent off on his errands, which appear to have been designed to take long enough to kill the children and herself. If this is true, then the plan to kill the children and herself may have begun to be implemented before the voice allegedly spoke. If that is so, the claim that the voice made her do it would be weakened.
The timing is important, because without the compulsion of the voice, there is no basis for saying that she could not have conformed her conduct to law.
None of this is to deny that the woman was mentally ill, and seriously so. But avoiding criminal responsibility requires more than that.
Clancy told a Dr. Kirk that when she implemented the plan to kill them ” she wasn’t thinking about legalities” she said she was in implementing the task only. She was in action only. Please see Dr. Kirk’s testimony.
So the voice that is the purported test of whether she knew right from wrong materialized immediately *after* she lucidly sent her husband on an errand rationally designed to be of sufficient duration for her to psychotically and without conscious control perpetrate the murders of her children that the voice subsequently instructed her to commit. The most benign way I can describe that premise is by citing what a stunningly convenient sequence of “events” it represents, but I am much more inclined to classify it as transparently fraudulent equine excrement.
She may have been in a dream state, planning and acting in a dream. She convinced everyone she was sane at the time? It’s like Ted Bundy being charming?
lin: you know NOTHING about postpartum psychosis–so why do you feel qualified to spout opinions about something you know nothing about? You obviously rely on MAGA media, which speaks volumes. According to evidence, Clancy DID reach out to her psychiatrist and only got nurse practitioners. She had been hospitalized for a time, and probably needed to be inpatient longer. If she had been able to resist the voices and impulses that drove her to kill her children and try to kill herself, she would have been unable to “stop thinking about it” and go to the ER. That’s not how psychosis and hallucinations work. And, where do you get off claiming that the women jurors would have voted to acquit due to sympathy instead of following the law and believing the psychiatric experts who opined that her act was the product of postpartum psychosis? Jurors are the exclusive deciders about witness credibility.
More MAGA anti-women spin. And, if the act of killing was due to psychosis and voices telling her she had no choice, there were no “homicidal thoughts”–homicide is a volitional act–not the product of psychosis and hallucinations. Here’s what AI reports about the voices:
“According to accounts from her husband, psychologist Paul Zeizel, and hospital chaplain Sheila Cavanaugh, Clancy said the voice commanded her to act immediately, warned that she and her children would not be safe if she disobeyed, and told her she had no choice.”
Anonymous, there were no “voices”. The voice made its appearance once and once only. There was testimony from the experts that this was very unusual. It seems to have spoken after she sent her husband off on his errands. It had not appeared any time before and did not reappear any time after.
She must have had second thoughts and the voice came in? Maybe possession is real?
^^^^this is why gigi/natasha had to go back working as a LPN. If she wants to practice law, her best partner would be X/george. They seem to share a pompous non-understanding of law. I can see them hanging out their shingle, “GG Enterprises”
perhaps we have had it all wrong about gigi – natacha – george – X. perhaps it gave birth to an alien and has had postpartum psychosis forevah!
Does that juror have a case for legal action against this so-called attorney?
It seems clear that over-zealousness by Reddington crosses the line from acceptable into Jury Tampering
Weaker Jude’s might have fallen for it
The caretaker Mr. Torrence noticed that it’s a little slow today. Things could be a whole lot better. But its time to discipline the child.
That was fun to watch. It’s been years since I’ve watched that movie. Thank you
So, you think their house is haunted?
It’s a hotel stupid. Come out, come out where ever you are.
These are hallucinations in the hotel. Maybe they’re ghosts, stupid. Maybe Clancy’s house is haunted. 😏
What if you were a young mother and you, your husband and your three young children lived next door to Lindsay Clancy, and she murdered YOUR children? Would you have any sympathy for her postpartum depression?
That’s an argument?
Reddington made his bones in the bay state being on call Mob Attorney.
He’s the guy the Italians go to when the feds do a sweep.
One courageous juror stood tall for truth and justice. By holding the line, he stopped Lindsay Clancy and her bulldog lawyer from successfully using a fabricated insanity defense to escape accountability for the horrific murder of three innocent children. True bravery.
Could not have happened. The disease is family-focused
Too much is being made of this. Hung juries are not uncommon. This simply means there can be a new trial. The irony is that if the juror had gone along with the rest of the jurors, she would have been acquitted.
” The irony is that if the juror had gone along with the rest of the jurors, she would have been acquitted.”
That is more than irony; acquittal would have been a complete and total societal disaster. Don’t forget that this would not have been an acquittal based on any dispute over whether or not the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did the deed. Such acquittals are justifiable, even when mistaken; that is the very basis of the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”. It would have been because of a new standard of intent required for a conviction that would arguably be impossible to meet. After that, we have de facto anarchy. I have been preparing for that eventuality, and I believe I am more prepared for it than 95% of the population, but that does not mean that I want to see it arrive.
Insightful, number 6.
Has anyone asked her husband why he divorced her?