people are more likely to protect members of their own race, even if they're clearly in the wrong. if it were an all-white jury, she might have gotten through no problem.
I believe his stubbornness has to do with how the trial would go if she were a black woman. More than likely she would go to prison without a second thought, but in this case she could go to a psych ward for life. Which isn’t necessarily better than prison forever, but if thats the reason why he refused to change then it makes sense.
I appreciate the awards yall but this is just me trying to make sense of his position. Do not take it as fact. I’d prefer if we’d focus on fixing the system that has failed so many.
While likely true about a black woman being found guilty, the goal for the justice system shouldn’t be harsher treatment for white people (bc we will get it even worse) but fairer treatment for us.
That’s a whole ass different argument from the conversation at hand and from à comment below, it’s getting addressed (idk if it is tho, I’m busy eating before court)
I agree in principle, but principles aren’t always put into practice. The current practice is that we get harsher punishment. I think enough harsher punishment for white people will eventually result in fairer treatment for us. If the current circumstances have reiterated anything, it’s that white people don’t care until it is happening to them.
If he held out because of how things would go for another person of a different skin tone or sex, his reasoning makes sense. This does not mean his actions are correct/incorrect. This is a reflection of a faulty justice system because if you can kill anyone unprovoked, there is something wrong with you mentally. The justice system is not designed to treat or rehabilitate anyone, it’s a strict punishment for profit system.
With that being said, if we are only going by the laws/practices that are already put into place, looking at prior planning to kill her children, and sending her husband away while she committed the acts.
That’s premeditated, which means she should be found guilty of capital murder/first degree murder.
TLDR: The justice system needs reformation to help people. However, under the current laws she’s should be found guilty of first degree murder.
Also, don’t feed into the divisive political stances or social wars that cases like this are being used for.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I told my close friends immediately that I couldn’t be on that jury. I think the justice system isn’t nuanced enough to handle this, but I probably would’ve said guilty because I know for a fact black women aren’t getting that same grace and consideration.
I would have said not guilty by reason of insanity. Following the case, the prosecution didn't do enough at all to prove that she wasn't insane and she took every avenue to get psychiatric help before the murders. Removing my own emotions aside it's basically the right thing to do. Clancy has fuck all to do with Latasha Sanders.
It's like the Dejuan Brown stabbing of Iryna Zarutska he's currently committed in a mental facility.
Her own husband said he didn’t marry a monster, he married a woman who became ill. He’s suing the hospital and her doctors into the ground in a civil suit over how they messed up her meds and evaluations.
By all accounts she loved those kids and her becoming mentally ill to the point she killed them in her psychosis is horrifying. Her mother in law and parents all came to support her during the trial. We have let right wing media talking points politicize a complicated case and it’s resulting in culture war bull shit or people just wanting to see punishment. The reality is the medical system failed this woman like it fails so many other women. And now we are letting the justice system fail her again by dragging this case into public and people wanting to kill and hurt a mentally ill woman just to satisfy their own sense of justice and revenge. The people closest to her and this case don’t even want that
On one hand I can understand the annoyance of Clancy supporters who have turned the case into their own crime podcast and trying to pin it on her husband before the trial even started
At they same time, I don't have shit to do with them. She was clearly going through a psychosis and no other evidence says otherwise. I'm not needlessly putting a man or woman in prison for first degree murder. Clancy going to prison isn't helping out black women.
Glad you have the self awareness! And, I believe there are mechanisms to make it known that you can’t be fair and to remove yourself from the jury if at any point you think you can’t be impartial.
I used to work in jury services for my local superior court. We always want jurors to admit they cant be unbiased. It's part of the original selection process. Common one was people who were anti death penalty serving where a trial might have that on the table.
Def saw folks lie to get on a jury. One was a dv case. Jurors were asked: "have you or anyone you known ever been impacted by domestic violence? Juror currently had protective order against him for a dv case. Basically, it was still processing and no one caught it before hand. Man lied to get on the jury. No idea why. Whole trial had to be thrown out and had to start all over again with a fresh group of jurors, etc. I personally felt he hated women and just wanted to find another man innocent.
Process is called "voir dire." Basically, jurors have to truthfully state why they cannot be unbiased for a trial. We had a violent child sexual assault/ torture case that was really bad. All the jurors said they couldnt be impartial. When they came back the the jury room many were sobbing uncontrollably. Went thru a month of tissue box supply in one day. I felt so bad for them. I think the perp ended up taking a plea cos his lawyer told him they might never be able to get a jury.
Mad respect to any one on a jury. Especially this one. Im sure they saw images they will never get over. It takes guts to be able to be unbiased. And gut to admit you cant be.
Makes sense, but does not make it okay, if what other jurors said is to be believe which is that he literally said "I don't think the prosecution proved that she wasn't in psychosis beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm still voting guilty."
The actual answet is neither should go to prison. Just because there is an injustice towards one race doesnt mean all races should get unjust treatment, it means the race facing injustice should be treated better.
She shouldn't be in jail, though. She should be in a mental health facility. which would have happened if she was found not guilty.
White people were letting her off easy. It wasn't a white v. Black case. In that situation, I agree with you. There were many moms on the jury who had reasonable doubt about her mental state.
It’s just a perfect case for the moment. Men vs woman. Black vs white right before elections. Everybody keep their head up. Its Agit prop. None of this has to do with the price of diesel being at record highs, inflation, constant corruption and back dealings etc. their fleecing us while we argue about a dude who did a thing.
Conservatives in the US have been pushing the story of this woman murdering her kids to justify taking away women’s rights. Conservatives believe all white women support Clancy, so now this juror is a convenient scapegoat for infighting.
There's a conversation going around that suggests that if the woman was black or was a black young black man, they wouldn't be getting the same level of support as this white woman. Black people have been sent to jail for less. There's nuance in this case, but it's the internet.
It is kind of creepy how much these people are talking about something that should be anonymous. Jurors shouldn’t receive backlash or fallout for their judgements. They shouldn’t be singled out in the media afterwards.
This is a post trump American unfortunately they only care about attention and money now no matter how many lives they ruin in the process. Their names and faces should have never been seen but now people are just going to harass them regardless of what way they voted.
Above all else, jurors should feel safe to make a decision. If jurors feel that they will be subject to a public shaming as a result of their decision, that makes a fair trial impossible.
I am genuinely surprised that it is legal for jurors to publicly complain about other individual jurors like this.
Honestly, all the media attention is ridiculous. It's become this whole big thing, but familicide happens quite often. This one is being used as a mental health debate (I agree that she had mental health problems) and as some gender gotcha scenario...
Also how extreme a claim people keep making about this jury. The decision was simply whether the defendant was sane and aware when she committed the murder. No one was voting she was innocent or guilty of murder, she plead guilty. This was all about how her punishment and care would be handled.
I personally don't feel like going through the evidence for/against but the Internet seems to be using this jury as a reason to reinforce sexist and now racial bias by pretending the jury was deciding a completely different question.
The lone Black juror on the Lindsay Clancy trial who refused to acquit her used an exercise band and an empty water bottle to visually reenact the way Clancy strangled her three children. The incident was said to have disturbed the other 11 jurors.
This was about the insanity plea. Nobody is disputing if she killed them. How are yall this slow? Took me 10 mins to scroll the case details and figure that out.
Saying she strangled the children and demonstrating it doesn’t matter, that’s a fact of the case. The case is about if she was insane or not.
I’ve had family members while not in touch with reality cook full meals, have full conversations on the phone, one even walked halfway across the state, I’ve had times where I’m talking to them and we are having a normal conversation but they are also talking to people in the room that don’t exist.
The jury has a right to his opinion and to his vote. Though I think he probably was of the opinion that it didn’t matter if she 100% without a doubt insane, that she should go to prison anyway instead of the psychiatric prison.
The issue is how the laws are written in Massachusetts. The facts of the case were genuinely irrelevant to the law because both the prosecution and defense agreed on the facts. In MA, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant is of sound mind to be tried if they use an insanity defense. In most other states, the defense has to prove insanity to use it as a defense. I think we see here why it's a bad idea to presume insanity until proven reasonable.
Like it or not, it's pretty clear why all but one juror chose to acquit. It was the legally correct decision given the law. The juror seems to have been going over facts that were entirely irrelevant to the actual legal case being presented.
I would guess the people in Massachusetts who drafted that law would probably say something like:
The defendant is presumed innocent to begin with and should only be found guilty if the prosecution can prove their case does not leave any room for reasonable doubt. So if the law they are trying to find the defendant guilty of violating says someone is only guilty if they were in their right mind at the time, why wouldn't it be on the prosecution to prove that there's no reasonable doubt that the defendant was in their right mind just like the prosecution would have to prove what they're saying for any other relevant aspect of the case?
Because I (and most people) feel like the default assumption is yes, you are in your right mind at any given moment, and it should be on the defense to prove that you weren't. If you have an existing diagnosis, sure, but absent that -- and Clancy had not been diagnosed with schizophrenia or anything -- then it seems unreasonable to force the prosecution to have to prove that you WEREN'T suffering from an illness that there's no evidence you were ever suffering from.
Eh, we congratulate jurors on jury nullification (also going against the legally “correct” decision) all the time. It’s risky for the prosecution and defense to let a jury decide.
Lords, internet people! There was just no reason for him to do a demo. She killed her kids period. Jail or institution were their options. Reenacting killing 3 kids doesn’t really factor in , no?
Wait, jurors can just have access to their phone while they deliberate? Doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of an unbiased jury if they can access what the public zeitgeist’s opinions and feelings are?
Edit: lol at the two conflicting responses, such is Reddit.
Yeah seems like bullshit, when I did mine we had to hand over all electronics during proceedings and deliberation but you did get them bacn during lunch break.
Actually, I think they have been getting funny, not even like when they dont go into like bashing the right, like I think they may have hired an actual funny writer, like this joke is a good christian joke
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. This is a woman who lived her full life and that was all he cared about"
"She went 40 years without murdering someone, why should 3 murders in a single day ruin her life"
The jurors were brain dead
Edit - i know what the argument for not guilty was. I'm saying if this was any other combination of gender/race/ethnicity, this would've been a slam dunk for the prosecution. Male? Guilty. Black/latino/asian/middle Eastern woman? Guilty.
The only reason this wasn't an open and shut case was because she was a white woman. This lady had access to therapy, was well supported financially, had a nanny, and was in a much better position to get the help she needed than a majority of people in America. There's no excuse for murdering 3 children, full stop.
The right wing media campaign that this was somehow about her doing life or going free is maddening. “not guilty by reason of insanity” is not an acquittal, she will spend the rest of her life in a state institution the question is just prison or mental institution. Nobody ever said “murdering your kids shouldn’t ruin your life” and pretending like they did is part of a fascist campaign to cast women as unworthy of political rights
Literally a case in the 50's where something like this happened. Woman killed her kids, went to the psych ward, out in 3 years. After some time she has more kids and kills them too.
Exactly, you can hack a sleeping man’s head off with a machete on a greyhound bus before eating the corpse in front of the other passengers and you can get out in under 5 years. With a name change as a bonus so long as you pinky promise the review board (who are incentivized to prove their system works to rehabilitate) that you’ll take your pills every day.
You're right, it's not guaranteed, as the case above (and all of the cases where men have killed children and were able to argue insanity successfully) makes clear. Why is it we just have a problem with that fact now that a woman is using the same defense men have used for years?
Ummm. I'm a lefty and believe she would be out relatively quickly based on the fact that the mental illness she was suffering from is temporary. Not sure how that's a right wing thing. In MA they would have to continually prove she is a danger to keep her.
And to be clear, I think she should be out if her mental health allows it.
Except that this person was desperately trying to get help from medical professionals and was admitted to a psych ward twice. Her husband knew how much she was struggling, and so did her friends and family. None of this is in question. No one on either side disputes that her mental health issues were legit.
The only question is: did she fake the delusion (which means she is guilty and goes to prison), or did she have delusions (which means she is innocent not guilty by means of insanity and gets put in a psych ward). She was never going free. It was just a question as to what facility she'd go to at the end of the trial.
In very sharp contrast, Brock Allen Turner was a opportunity rapist who randomly attacked a woman, raped her, and had to be physically dragged off of her by passers-by. He has never taken any responsibility, and faced next to zero consequences (and what little he did was because of the public's outrage) because "as a swimmer, he had a bright future". How in the fucking world can anyone compare the two situations?
Nobody reasonable are saying she didn’t. Everybody that saw the trial and the jurors all admit it happened. The issue is Mental health and her state of mind during those actions. The prosecutors made their best attempt at establishing prior intent to dismiss any mental health concerns. 11 jurors felt those concerns were not dismissed beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 did. It wasn’t because he was black and they were white. It was from different beliefs in mental health issues and concerns. That woman will be lucky to see an unmedicated free view of the world regardless of the outcome of the trial for decades, don’t forget that.
Correct.
I personally think this case became something that it wasn't meant to be. It was an extreme case of how mental health issues aren't taken seriously in this country.. of how womens health issues, after childbirth, are often ignored... it became men vs women.. and now white vs black. The latter two things don't matter in this case. Every single person would be better off of we had free mental health care in this country.
Yeah but I don't think that even applies here. Reality is Lindsay Clancy was an incredibly privileged woman who has all the means to get mental health services and DID. She was seeing a therapist and taking medication. She had access to mental services. That wasn't a problem for her. Thats why I don't understand why people are acting like this case was a matter of "mental health services need to be accessible" cause that's not even a factor in this case.
I agree that this isn't the poster child case for 'insufficient mental health services'. I think it's more indicative of how differently people view those suffering from mental health issues, especially the more severe cases. People think, "Oh, I've had (situational) depression, and I just started working out and eating better, so that's all anyone else has to do."
Maybe it's because my dad was a psychiatrist and my mom is a psychologist, but growing up I always understood (from listening to my parents) that some people's mental health issues are severe, and it isn't something they can just "be resilient" and get themselves out of. It's all about how severe the problems are, and most medications aren't addressing the cause of the mental illness, only the symptoms of the illness.
The fact we even have a system where extreme mental illness can reduce your culpability is proof in and of itself that there are niche cases where someone's illness is so severe that they truly can't be held to account like 99.9% of everyone else. Most people have just never experienced that level of mental illness, so they simply can't wrap their heads around it. A lot of times, mental illness gets put in the "moral failings" bucket in a lot of people's minds.
Thats why I don't understand why people are acting like this case was a matter of "mental health services need to be accessible" cause that's not even a factor in this case.
Because if this trained nurse with all of her privilege couldn't get the help she needed to conquer this issue, what hope do other, less privileged women have? That's why women are so horrified and outraged by this case. She did everything "right", and still didn't get the right help. So what else can women do?
For me you kinda explain why, despite being privileged and having access to all those resources it still ended up in a triple homicide and a suicide attempt.
So what are the perspective for those who haven´t all this ? I doubt it will be a better outcome.
That is the dark side of jury nullification. In particular, this often happened in cases in the south. White juries letting off white defendants because the crime they committed was against a black person.
That's about going the other direction and believing someone should be acquitted even if the law says guilty. The holdout juror was allegedly ignorning evidence and saying they had doubts but still saying guilty anyway I guess because they felt killing the kids was too messed up or they didn't agree with law around lack of criminal responsibility. They swear an oath to follow the judges instructions on the law and it would be misconduct to deliberately violate that. That's all just going off the information available, I don't know perfectly what happen in deliberation obviously and I'm not injecting my opinion there.
The legal system in general should be very favored towards not falsly imprisonning people incorrently over acquitting guilty people incorrectly. In that sense it has to be clear about things like beyond a resonable doubt.
In this case there will probably be a new trial and I would guess the verdict will be not guilty by insanity. There will be some interesting appeals before then so we'll see what happens.
According to the other jurors. But that doesn’t make it true. The judge asked him and he said the opposite. This is just a pitchfork moment against someone who disagreed with them.
Conservatives are praising him for being Black because they think it throws a wrench in the "woke agenda" that has allowed Clancy to be acquitted in the first place.
But we know damn well conservatives would be discrediting him and calling him DEI the way they did the women jurors if he didn't align with their position.
We also know that misogyny isn't nonexistent in the Black community. Just a reminder how everything must be viewed through an intersectional lens nowadays.
EDIT: I'm aware Clancy was not acquitted; I was presenting the stance many conservatives have spewed when criticizing the mistrial verdict. My apologies for wording it poorly!
I'm still trying to figure out how we're connecting liberals to a stay at home mom with a husband pulling half a mil, a nanny, family support, and the best healthcare.
Conservatives are engaged in a war on women's rights - this extends to punitive actions against any women who breaks the law - so therefore, since there's people saying "now hold on, there's some questions here, let's unfuck this ball of yarn" they must be against the conservative and thus, liberals. This has been playground politics bullshit.
Exactly. See how many "My brother called off his wedding after he found out his fiancée supported Lindsey Clancy!" posts there are. Manufactured culture war bullshit to get people to hate on women.
This should be considered doxxing at this point, there are only like 10 black people in Massachusetts who don’t play for the Celtics. It’s gonna be so easy to identify him
Yet here I am, a Black man in an all Black neighborhood of Boston, a minority majority city, reading this. Last I checked, I don’t play for the Celtics, despite my younger hoop dreams. Let me tell the over half a million Black people here that we don’t exist because we must be lost.
Latarsha Sanders - same county, same judge. Diagnosed schizophrenic, murdered her two children and received 2 life sentences in prison. Not a mental institution. Prison.
And she gets a new trial because the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Sanders didn’t get a fair trial because the trial judge erred in excluding her post-arrest medical records.
2 other male jurors decidedly voted not guilty. Not to acquit that's a different thing altogether, acquittance was not available. Not guilty by reason of insanity was the option. He even admitted he had reasonable doubt that she was guilty yet out of spite didn't vote the same way as the other 11 jurors.
She should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. That doesn't mean she goes home, but she spends years, if not decades in a mental health facility.
Idk how people listening to the facts think she was in her right mind.
expert witness who works with her in the hospital:
"Lindsay has bad days and worse days" that woman will never be well enough to leave the hospital. stop acting like she's going to be on the streets next week if she got a not guilty verdict and went back to the hospital
I’m not pretending it didn’t. It’s just not where the discussion is being placed at. There is absolutely historical data that race affects the outcomes of trials. But this defendant is powerless to the systemic racism at hand and obviously is not benefitting from it either. Clamoring to get this lady locked up in state jail does not solve these obscene challenges placed on people of color. Disrupt the system and demand change, don’t demand people in jail.
She is powerless but is kind benefiting from it, because a POC would have been found guilty before lunch and would already be in prison. Agree with everything else tho.
The way other jurors were scrambling to get on TV and demonize him, I've been assuming this whole time he was black. Or at least not white. White women only circle up like that against minorities.
I know it's not without precedent, but this media tour that some of the jurors are doing is weird. And I really don't think you should be saying how specific people voted, especially when they're not you.
Skin color aside, it's pretty apparent that the lone juror believes that nobody gives a shit about mental health in 99% of cases, so the holdup was surely regarding why we should suddenly care about mental health in this case.
The lone juror being black supports this theory. It is well-documented history that black kids who were clearly mentally unwell were coerced into false confessions by police, found guilty immediately by all white juries, and executed expeditiously by the state. Mental health was not a factor in those cases. I think this is the stand that the juror took, whether you agree with it or not.
Not that I disagree with the reasoning, and the theory does have some merit.
I do think it is a bit presumptuous to say "it is pretty apparent" when there are plenty other motives or reasons that can be just as likely in this scenario for where the verdict stems from. The case in question is rather multi-faceted and it doesn't help that it is massively sensationalized either.
Here it feels more like you are projecting yourself onto the juror rather than considering the broader context the juror exists in beyond the historical, as well as the fact there's limited information around who the juror is.
I'd personally refrain from drawing conclusions based on limited evidence other than gut feeling and statistics.
There are numerous reports that the other jurors could be heard screaming at this brother to change his mind and that he “didn’t provide any evidence to support his decision.” He probably just got to the point that he knew they wouldn’t listen to him and decided to stay quiet. More than that he knew as a black man if he raised his voice they would roll out the “angry black man” stereotype against him and try to get him tossed from the jury.
As a black person listening to these other jurors go out in the media and trash this guy speaks volumes about what most likely happened in that room. Hats off to this man for staying calm, staying strong, and making the CORRECT decision.
Someone who knows more about the case, what exactly were the options for this lady? Would she just walk if they cane back not guilty or would it be a "by way of mental defect" situation where she would just not be in jail? It feels like the more I learn about this the further it ventures into white feminism territory.
It's neither. The question wasn't "did she do it" cuz she admitted she did. The question was "was she sane enough to know it was wrong." The options were a) guilty, in which she would go to prison or b) not guilty by insanity, where she would be placed in a mental institution indefinitely until she is deemed no longer a threat.
There's not an option where she's not punished in some way. Shit, she tried to kill herself already and, probably regardless of if she got out of an institution tomorrow or in 30 years, will probably kill herself the moment she is free.
You dont get psych ward for life, they look after you until they determine you aren't a threat to society and you get evaluated on a regular basis. On the other hand that state has life with no chance of parole for her crimes so you simply go in prison alive and come out dead.
The Psych Ward gives her a chance at being released however small, the prison gives her none.
Honest question. Wouldn't the psych ward find her not a threat to society? She murdered her children, there are no more children of hers to murder so technically she would not be a threat to society.
That state has life with no chance of parole for these crimes, she would die in a prison cell if she got that, there's no two ways about it.
Psych ward gives her more options because they can release her if at some point she is deemed to be stable enough. Her first evaluation would be 40 days from entering the ward. If she was considered stable enough not to be a danger to others in society she could be released as early as then which is unlikely given her mental state and the court would have to approve it. But she also gets a mandatory evaluation every 6 or 12 months(I cant remember which it is) for as long as she is interred so its possible she could leave that hospital and return to civilian life at some point. There is no possibility of her being released if found guilty though, she will die in prison unless some major evidence emerges at which point she will me able to appeal the judgement and most likely win the appeal. But thats unlikely given what we know.
Out of the 2 options, the psych ward is far better because she might get out one day. If she goes to prison she will never come out. One option is clearly better than the other for her especially over the longer term.
This case shows is that justice isn't for all and of course they singled him out. There's been a couple other trials where black women weren't given the same grace as Lindsay Clancy. Not saying they shouldn't have been, but the fact that this white woman, gainfully employed, access to adequate healthcare, is the face of this whole conversation, is sad. Wish our people were given the same opportunity and space for a fair trial, rather than just being considered violent or a lost cause. Hopefully there are serious changes after this.
Release the full un redacted Epstein files. Make sure those politicians and wealthy who’ve abused/trafficked/consumed those children get shown the guillotine.
I really don’t get how the other jurors are able to get on tv and attack him like this. He thought the murders we’re too premeditated and planned out to be due to insanity one of the jurors said.
This is not a win, it's just prolonging the inevitable not guilty by reason of insanity verdict she will get. The same verdict men are able to get when they kill children
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
This post is now officially for BPT country club members only. For more information, see here - https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/158a9t9/what_is_bpt_country_club_and_how_do_i_get/.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.