r/BlackPeopleTwitter • u/MGLLN • 21h ago

Could probably hear the “FOH!!” from space

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

12.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

582

u/nobleone8876 21h ago

That puts all the stuff the others juror's said about him in a new light honestly.

186

u/MelodicTour2 ☑️ 20h ago

What else was said im catching up

558

u/MGLLN 20h ago

"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"

From an interview featuring 3 of the jurors

720

u/Luis0224 20h ago edited 17h ago

"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.

372

u/johnnylovelace 19h ago

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

179

u/bot2317 18h ago

“She will spend the rest of her life in a state institution”

That is not guaranteed no matter how many times yall say it

103

u/StuMacherGhostface 17h ago

She could easily and realistically be out in like a year. How are you supposed to get life in a mental ward if your mental illness is temporary?

-26

u/ratfink_111 15h ago

That’s not true. Misinformation

22

u/Furrycontainmentalt 15h ago

You can’t just stick your hands over your ears and call ‘misinformation’ because you don’t like reality…

-11

u/ratfink_111 15h ago

Call it like I see it. Just Google if that’s likely. It’s not hard.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/SplintPunchbeef ☑️ 12h ago

Absolutely factual. Massachusetts law says the initial commitment is valid for six months, and after that she can only be recommitted in additional one-year periods. Every single year they would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she's still mentally ill and that releasing her would cause serious harm.

Even the initial six months isn't guaranteed since the facility can attempt to discharge her before then, but the DA gets the opportunity to petition for continued commitment.

The defense's argument is that the murders were caused by a postpartum psychotic episode. If that episode has resolved, what exactly would justify long-term commitment beyond the initial six months?

40

u/I_wanted_to_be_duck 14h ago

So aggravating that this is repeated Ad nauseam.

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.

7

u/Ok_Mastodon7622 11h ago

Insane People leading each other

-1

u/Competitive_Swan_130 10h ago

this man who recently got out of a psych ward for killing a kid hasn't reoffended so maybe there is hope.

-1

u/blaawker 7h ago

You're trying to make a point somehow? This is terrifying. If you murder someone because of your insanity, you should be locked up for life. Fact! Mental illness is handled so badly so good luck with the insanity not surfacing up again later. I get it you want your hero free to roam the streets but get a better argument.

14

u/Furrycontainmentalt 15h ago

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.

10

u/nowyouseemenowyoudo2 15h ago

With a temporary condition like she’s claimed, as long as she isn’t pregnant again, she could be out in 6 months.

11

u/Competitive_Swan_130 10h ago edited 9h ago

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?

14

u/joshTheGoods ☑️ 8h ago

What? What makes you think anyone in here would be OK with that guy getting out based on not guilty by insanity? Fuck him, too.

6

u/A1Horizon ☑️ 6h ago

Men shouldn’t be “getting away” with this defense either. If this was a classic male family annihilation we should be singing the same tune. This isn’t singling her out by gender

58

u/same_old_dude 18h ago

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.

13

u/PortraitOnFire 13h ago

You think she should be out of her mental health allows it? She killed 3 children. Where she needs to be is prison.

-3

u/same_old_dude 13h ago

I disagree.

-1

u/kylepo 12h ago

If she's a threat to others, yeah. If she isn't a threat to others, then why waste government resources keeping her locked up?

1

u/PortraitOnFire 10h ago

She killed 3 children, that’s why. She’s literally already proven she’s a threat to others.

3

u/kylepo 10h ago

Cool, well, we're talking about a hypothetical future where she's successfully treated and deemed by medical professionals to no longer be a threat to others. You're saying that she should remain locked up after that point, which seems kinda pointless.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ratfink_111 15h ago

Because that’s highly unlikely to happen. There are strict, exhaustive psychiatric evaluations she will have to go through to determine her mental state - and it’s intense. To think she’ll be out in a year takes the stance she wasn’t in psychosis in the first place.

8

u/same_old_dude 13h ago edited 13h ago

It's a right wing thing because that's highly unlikely to happen? I don't follow.

Also, certainly disagree that it takes the stance that she wasn't in psychosis. It was nearly 3 years ago, for a condition that doesn't usually last more than a few months.

0

u/ratfink_111 13h ago

No that’s not I said. And okay. Didn’t know you were here psychiatrist.

6

u/same_old_dude 13h ago

Either you yourself are a (terrible) psychiatrist. Or this is an hilariously hypocritical statement.

7

u/Foundalandmine 16h ago

She would get reviewed every year, and if she could prove that she 1) is no longer suffering from psychosis, and 2) is no longer suicidal, she'd be a free woman

3

u/SharkExpert 11h ago

You are wrong. That is fundamentally untrue.

If Lindsay Clancy were found not guilty by reason of insanity, she would NOT face a guaranteed life sentence in a mental institution, but she could remain confined indefinitely if she is still considered mentally ill and dangerous.

How Commitment Works in Massachusetts

Initial Confinement: An acquittal by reason of lack of criminal responsibility leads to an immediate civil commitment order to a secure psychiatric facility (likely back to Tewksbury, where she’s been.)

The court reviews the commitment status annually.

Potential for Release: If doctors and the court determine that the mental disease or defect has resolved and she is no longer a danger to herself or others, the judge can order her discharge after a formal hearing.

If I were on that jury, there’d be two votes to convict.

1

u/100thBlade 11h ago

Unfortunately, thats actually not at all correct.

When someone is found not criminally responsible for reasons of insanity, they are sent to a mental institution yes, but then they are fairly quickly assessed.

If they are found not to be a danger to the public or themselves, they are released.

Rightly or wrongly, those are the two choices society gives us at this time.

There is no "nice jail but for people who are mentally unwell" option.

There is only jail, which is punishment, or a mental hospital, whose only concern is whether today and into the future they are a danger to themselves or society.

If they are found to be neither or those things, they are released.

64

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BuddyNathan 7h ago

What do you believe should happen if you disregard the person's gender, color, political agenda, socio-economic status, and anything else that may identify or humanize them?

-1

u/TED-NECROMANCER 9h ago

And they should've rotted in jail. What's your point? Do you think only men are on parole/mental evaluation boards? Take the missandry and go away.

58

u/Finito-1994 19h ago

It’s literally the same argument people did for Brock turner. I think it’s literally the same one his dad did.

I’m paraphrasing but they said something along the lines of 15 minutes shouldn’t throw away almost 20 years of his life

61

u/Lexi_Banner 18h ago edited 17h ago

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?

64

u/Lovedd1 18h ago

Brock Allen Turner goes by Allen Turner now just fyi

28

u/Aichaich 17h ago

I had heard that Brock Allen Turner now goes by Allen Turner. But it’s still the same Brock Allen Turner.

3

u/joshTheGoods ☑️ 8h ago

You mean the rapist Allen Turner?

•

u/fumbletumbler192 1h ago

The rapist?

25

u/GTB5510 18h ago

It's even worse. His father phrased it as "15 minutes of action"

21

u/ned_head 18h ago

You mean convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner?

11

u/ARenewedSecondChance 16h ago

Those 2 situations are not even remotely the same, touch grass.

0

u/Finito-1994 16h ago

I mean. Yea. Brock didn’t kill anyone but it’s still fucking heinous what he did and it’s an utter injustice that hr was only given a light sentence. Thankfully no one will ever let him forget it

10

u/ARenewedSecondChance 16h ago

Except he wasn’t mentally ill. At all. He did that of his own cognizance and free will.

That is a very very important detail that you have left out for some reason.

-4

u/Finito-1994 15h ago

I mean. Yea. Why would I bring up Turners non existent mental health when discussing his sexual attack on a vulnerable woman? Like we know he did it.

3

u/cryptamine 12h ago

Are you referring to Brock Allen Turner the rapist who raped someone and got caugh?

15

u/WordWordNvmber 18h ago

No, they just understood that the question was whether the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't insane.

Trying to spin this as the jurors wanting to protect a murderer is dishonest and foolish.

11

u/dyang44 19h ago

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or a real quote from juror

13

u/duncandun 19h ago

Her life would be over regardless, one is just less cruel and unusual punishment for a woman experiencing psychosis

3

u/demonotreme 16h ago

there's no excuse for murdering 3 children, full stop

I mean, if you believe the testimony, being driven by command hallucinations and a delusion that you are saving those 3 children is, in fact, a legal excuse.

This is reddit so I gotta stress the if you believe part

2

u/gautyy 15h ago

Saw a man with a history of psychosis on TikTok explain how during an episode he had voices in his head telling him his cat was going to kill him in his sleep and then only option he had was to kill it first; he stayed up for like 3 nights to try and avoid the situation, then he grabbed a knife and went into the room to kill the cat; the moment he saw the cat he decided he’d rather die, rather let the cat kill him.

1

u/imacyco 17h ago

That's not even 0.1 murder per year!

/s

1

u/Astecheee 16h ago

Ah, so she was a rich white woman. Might as well be the POTUS for all the courts will do.

1

u/showerboots 10h ago

You're right on the statistics giving weight to our expectations, but your hypothetical racism and hypothetical misandry isn't accounting for the fact that the defense had the person who literally wrote the book on post-partum psychosis and filicide to state she was not aware of right or wrong. The prosecution only had general forensic psychologist expert that was unable to do anything other than say she performed basic daily errands, completely failing to disprove her psychotic break beyond a reasonable doubt under Massachusetts law.

1

u/k08lizek 9h ago

Does it mean that you have access to therapy and medication that you cannot get psychosis?

2

u/Luis0224 2h ago

No. But 1 in 5 women suffer from post partum depression, and that doesnt mean they all go kill their children as a result. This bitch killed 3 children methodically.

1

u/mazzoluem 9h ago

All the resources in the world, a supportive family. Yet the only response she can come up with is murder? She could have surrendered her kids to the state, saw different doctors, asked her husband for support, given the kids to her parents or in-laws, put herself in a mental health facility, gotten a nanny. This isn't some poor innocent victim waiting months and months for a referral or some single mom fleeing DV.

-3

u/-VoiceoverAlex- 19h ago

😮‍💨

-2

u/real6igma 18h ago

'15 minutes of fun' ahh take

167

u/zefen 20h ago

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.

2

u/doc_skinner 19h ago

As soon as there is a budget issue in the facility where she is being kept, she will be declared cured. I'd be surprised if she is under controlled supervision for more than five years.

Prisoners make money. "Patients" don't.

88

u/[deleted] 20h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/KingDave46 18h ago

Didn't another (female if that makes a difference) juror admit she initially voted guilty but just went with the crowd in the end because the rest of them were so aggressively arguing?

The women interviewed admitted they were screaming at the remaining guy so loud people outside the room could hear it.

I don't see any sense of justice in just being intimidated in to going against your decision

25

u/holystuff28 18h ago

No. She literally said she changed her mind. 

-33

u/ShamanicCrusader 19h ago

The act is not something one can do easily while insane. Insane people do not act rationally and he is pointing out the rationality necessary to commit such an act.

A level of intentionality is required to take the actions she took that requires you to be sane.
This was not something easy to do like putting poison in food or driving off a cliff.

35

u/[deleted] 19h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-13

u/ShamanicCrusader 18h ago edited 18h ago

Ive worked in a psych ward as security watching psychotic patients

I literally have hundreds of hours of experience just sitting and watching over people with varying degrees of psychosis

(Edit: it’s literally my job to assess when they will be a danger to themselves or others. I also teach the classes on intervention in crisis scenarios and know the escalation signs. I like to think that makes me amenable mental health professional)

I dont say this lightly. I have to deal with manipulative sane people playing the system as well.

The biggest is self interest in my experience. Someone in a full break down doesnt start trying to make plans to do bad shit. They just do it….

The manipulators will be the ones to plan and come up with stories. The manipulators can also have psychosis but they can tell right from wrong

Clancy clearly could tell right from wrong. People are being manipulated but the mental health angle. I see it alot in how patients talk to their families versus the actual events thats occures

18

u/I_B_Banging 18h ago

I mean just cause you're a security guard in a psych ward that does not give you a degree in either psychiatry or psychology, if anything it biases you against the mentally unwell because it's your entire  job to see them at their worst without necessarily understanding the intricacies of their brain chemistry.

Their was a documented history of her seeking our help from mental health professional and instead receiving a variety of different medications with contra-indications. There's more than enough reasonable doubt surrounding whether she was compos mentis.

0

u/ContextLengthMatters 13h ago

This is a jury of peers, correct? Isn't it the job of the LAYMAN to decide whether or not what they feel constitutes insanity under their own reasonable doubt? You can't sit here and tell someone they aren't qualified and then ask 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty to be any smarter.

Our qualifications for insanity and the processes of our legal system are two separate things with their own histories.

At the end of the day, that lone juror has the power her has to do what he did and those who doxx and buly him have committed far greater offenses that need to be addressed.

0

u/ShamanicCrusader 17h ago

The last part of my class is literally me saying that we have to see patients a fully developed people having a bad day

If you judge me the way you judge the clancy case i can see that you are ready to create scenarios in your head that dont exist to justify your bias

-2

u/ShamanicCrusader 17h ago

I literally teach 8 hour classes to all incoming staff on reading and understanding psych ward patients. I teach the doctors and the nurses….

We literally focus like 50% of our class on working through our own biases and the biases that mental health patients face. Like our main focus is on deescalation and using empathy…

We teach about the mechanics of the escalation of violence, both emotional and physical.

Buddy its literally my job to assess the violence of the mentally unwell…..
I have to make the call about safety situations as well as asses the motivation for violence. I have to write formal reports whenever a situation gets serious….

I have full power of a situation when it comes to safety meaning i can override a doctors orders when the situation arrises….

Trust me those doctors and nurses are not as well read or experienced as you think and get themselves into trouble all the time because they dismiss me as you have done now.

I constantly go out of my way to learn about various mental illnesses and take in others experiences as well

You are selling me short so you can continue this narrative of the mentally unwell never being responsible for their actions……

7

u/I_B_Banging 17h ago

Your lack of empathy is either because you have not read the facts of the case or because you genuinely believe you can 'read the body language' of the woman under trial.

Again body language reading is not a scientifically accepted methodology.

Again you don't have a degree, you don't have published articles, you are not qualified to diagnose this woman or anyone else.

To be clear neither am I because I'm just a neurobiologist, but I am not the one advocating that she is criminally liable here.

You, believe it or not, have a set of biases because of the nature of your claimed job.

By your own statement you see more people on their worst then their best day,  have you considered that it might influence how you perceive people?

 Not saying your immoral or a bad person,  I don't know you from Adam, but consider how you parse the idea of compos mentis and how the order in which one parses information changes how one contextualizes it.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/DrunkenHobo-Patnor 17h ago

There has to be thousands, of not millions of people that are over prescribed whatever anti pysch, depression, anxiety meds that still wouldn't have come to such a point and would long since before have checked themselves in if they fear they are a danger to themselves or others...

7

u/I_B_Banging 17h ago

She did check herself in though, like she was in inpatient, days before the murder if I remember the facts right.

She was checked out for one of the kids birthdays or something along those lines for what was meant to be a few days.

The hospital that let  her out are currently being sued.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/demonotreme 16h ago

If you have really been in a locked psych ward then you should have some idea that compulsive command hallucinations are thought to be extremely uncommon, even in that highly selective patient population.

I've even seen it listed as a red flag that a person is probably making up symptoms.

2

u/ShamanicCrusader 15h ago

Agreed those are the scariest in terms of recovery and theyre rare.
Thats why it all seems like bullshit. Its all perfectly convenient with no meaningful outside evidence to suggest she was in full blown psychosis at other times

26

u/Educational-Oil4043 19h ago

That’s not how psychosis works tho. You can do something methodically and rationally while being in psychosis. The psychosis leads to your understanding of reality being distorted but it doesn’t prevent you from creating plans or following through on ones plans.

15

u/holystuff28 17h ago

This is wholly inaccurate. I'm a criminal defense attorney in a major metropolitan area (lots of very unwell folks) and there is literally a l w a y s logic and a rational through line, even when someone is deeply unwell, psychotic, or delusional. Psychosis does not necessarily mean irrational. 

0

u/ShamanicCrusader 17h ago

I think you are proving my point. Psychosis does not automatically make you irrational.
The case is about whether or not the psychosis made them aware of the morality of their actions.

We are looking at the degree of psychosis not whether or not psychosis was present. A schizophrenic can still be found guilty, people with psychosis can still commit crimes.

I am saying her actions were too consistent with reality for her insanity plea to be believed.

We are talking about rationality relative to reality not perception. An insane person has a warped perception of reality thus they act irrationally thats the definition of psychosis.

Even the most insane person thinks they are acting rationally. What decides their rationality is how they respond to reality

5

u/holystuff28 16h ago

Did you just mansplain NGRI to a criminal defense attorney? Psychosis absolutely isn't "a warped perception of reality this they act irrationally." Like even a little. Psychosis means a marked departure from reality or difficulty determining what's real due to  consistent auditory or visual hallucinations or delusions. People with psychosis can still think rationally to act out on their  delusions or beliefs. 

I'm never gonna agree with you, bud. 

0

u/ShamanicCrusader 15h ago

Ahh typical
Expounding and adding to someones point is now mansplaining

Cant build off of someone else’s comment if they’re a woman otherwise you being no sexist

It shows where you mind is at in this case. The facts dont matter gender is what matters most to you.

You are literally denying the textbook definition of psychosis. Thats how biased you are…of course the person denying basic facts wont agree with the person stating facts

“Psychosis is a mental state marked by a disconnection or loss of contact with reality, where a person has trouble telling what is real from what is not real.”

1

u/demonotreme 16h ago

You think obtaining and using poison doesn't show deliberation and intent?

2

u/ShamanicCrusader 15h ago

Putting anti freeze or rat poison from the garage into someones food requires less deliberation and thought than strangling 3 kids one after the other

-6

u/percypersimmon 19h ago

Didn’t she deliberately send her husband to a location that was further away than necessary in order to give her more time?

Clearly she was very very sick and PPD is certainly real and awful BUT based on all the evidence I’ve seen a “not guilty by reason of insanity” in this case would be a dramatic departure from the typical way this is exercised.

It seems clear that she knew right from wrong if she deliberately sent her husband away so she could do it.

5

u/TheMormonJosipTito 19h ago

All that indicates is she thought the husband would try to stop her, not that she thought it was the wrong thing to do.

And it wouldn’t be a big departure, Massachusetts just has more lenient standards on pleading insanity

-3

u/percypersimmon 19h ago

I guess?

But doesn’t that imply “he would stop me because this is wrong?”

The whole thing is complicated and sad.

I guess the big dif for Mass is they still basically use the M’Naghten rule but the def don’t have to prove insanity, and the pros must instead prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is an important distinction

8

u/I_B_Banging 18h ago

I mean people in psychosis can think their actions are morally right.

If she was convinced what she did to those poor kids was her only options , then sending the husband away must have made some level of sense to her.

She should never have been left alone with those kids after her multiple mental health crises.

4

u/holystuff28 17h ago

PPD is not PPP. These are very different conditions

2

u/RobinSophie 19h ago

That's the part I'm stuck on.

If the husband was doing his normal routine like he went to work and let's say the thought/voices told her to kill the kids and she did it, I can totally see temporary insanity. But to lure your husband out of the house? That alludes to you having enough sense to get rid of someone who could stop you from doing the act.

1

u/fennecdore 18h ago

why is it lure ? It was a reasonable request to have him pickup meds and food no ?

0

u/RobinSophie 15h ago

It was a responsibility request for anyone who wasn't planning to kill their kids or who wasn't allegedly hearing voices telling them to kill their kids.

But it appears she purposely sent him on the quest so she could have the time needed to kill the kids.

2

u/ChurchillDownz 12h ago

Wow. I thought that quote was exaggerated. These two women seem disconnected from reality.

2

u/A1Horizon ☑️ 6h ago

Wait, he had a hard time getting off the fact that 3 children were strangled to death?? Insanity plea or not that sounds pretty fucking normal to me considering 1. it’s a heartbreaking thing to happen and 2. it’s the central premise of this entire case

-1

u/trapper2530 18h ago

Isn't that the whole point of the case though? That she viciously killed them? And admitted it and never denied it. Like why ia he suppoaed to get off that point?

51

u/SilverParty 20h ago

One lady said that he didn’t seem to understand what reasonable doubt was. 🙄

28

u/Khalil_Sack 19h ago

Yeah but her interview demonstrated that she actually had no idea what reasonable doubt meant legally

29

u/throwawayshirt2 20h ago

Lol they called the manager on him

29

u/[deleted] 21h ago

[deleted]

26

u/WildTimberTwinViking 21h ago

I guess I haven’t seen any comments to that effect?

1

u/getyourkicks76 10h ago

He literally had a restraining order against him for domestic violence when he was selected to be on the jury. His nephew filed a restraining order against him. To get onto the jury, he either lied on the juror selection form about having a criminal history, or it was somehow overlooked. He lied under oath when the judge made each of the jurors testify they understood how to apply reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt but said he wanted her found guilty. He’s not a martyr, he’s a POS who refused to follow the law.