Lindsay Clancy jurors say they’re deadlocked on whether she murdered her 3 kids
- Thread starter volsrocks
- Start date
WinterBorn
Verified User
Yes, she should get the help she needs.
But she was convicted of murdering those kids. She can get the help she needs while she serves her prison sentence.
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
Prisons in America are detention centers, not rehabilitation centers. She needs to be in a mental care facility, not a prison.
WinterBorn
Verified User
If she had gone for help before she murdered those kids, I would be inclined to agree with you.
But she murdered 3 children. That must be answered for.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
How does that change anything? As for knowing how that operates, over the years I've been kicked off two jury pools for cases involving capital crimes in favor of housewives with a high school diploma and retired workers who did some mundane job for 20 + years and never questioned anything.
In once case, there was a police officer and a lawyer in the pool. They were the first to go. I think the defense didn't like that I'd happily toss some career felon who committed yet another murder into the woodchipper personally.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
She had help, and it was poor. She was prescribed medicines that should be rarely given because of possible side effects affecting a person's thinking and mental state. I forget the name of it, but the doctor is under scrutiny for giving it. I've had some mental episodes myself.
No Son. There is no doubt that she did the heinous deed.
Lindsay Clancy jurors say they’re deadlocked on whether she murdered her 3 kids — here’s what happens next
Judge William Sullivan told the panelists to continue deliberationsnypost.com
I guess murdering children is okay if you’re on drugs
The debate is whether she was sane at the time.
Where to begin?
Claim 1: Lawyers selected “12 idiots” as the easiest to manipulate
This is speculation, not a description of how the jury was chosen.
- Both the prosecution and the defense participated in voir dire. Each side had challenges for cause and a limited number of peremptory strikes. The judge also questioned jurors and could excuse them. No single side “picked” the panel.
- The court used a written questionnaire that specifically asked about personal or family experience with postpartum depression, other mental-health conditions, and attitudes toward an insanity/lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense. Prospective jurors who said they could not be impartial were excused. That process is designed to remove people with strong preconceived opinions, not to harvest “idiots.”
- Public reporting from the four days of selection described a typical mix of ages and some emotional reactions to the subject matter; it did not describe a panel chosen for gullibility. Judge Sullivan later called them “a more dedicated group of jurors” than he had seen in other trials.
The “idiots for manipulation” framing is a cynical generalization about juries, not a documented fact about this one.
Claim 2: The jury contains no one with advanced degrees, professional occupations, law-enforcement background, or “the slightest opinion”
This cannot be verified and is presented as if it were known.
- Juror names, jobs, and education levels were never released. Massachusetts courts (and most U.S. courts) withhold that information in high-profile cases. Media covering the trial repeatedly noted that identities were not public.
- Therefore no one outside the courtroom—including T. A. Gardner—has a factual basis for stating what occupations or degrees are or are not represented.
- The only publicly reported traits of the final 12 are demographic: nine women and three men, with the foreperson described as an older woman with gray hair and glasses. That is the entire public record.
The claim that people with “the slightest opinion” were excluded is also overstated. Voir dire screens for bias that would prevent a fair trial, not for the absence of any views. Jurors who said they could follow the law and consider the evidence were seated.
Bottom line
The post is opinion dressed as insider knowledge. The first sentence is an unsupported characterization of jury selection. The second sentence asserts facts about the jurors’ education and occupations that are simply not available to the public. Neither claim can be confirmed or disproven from the record that exists.