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

Show parent comments

394

u/UndeadAnneBoleyn 20h ago

No one on the jury said she didn’t murder her children. That is not in dispute. They were deciding on the insanity plea.

-244

u/ganja_and_code 19h ago

Insanity pleas are bullshit anyway.

"If I'm crazy enough, I can kill my kids and it's not my fault."

Like dude, if you kill your kids, first of all you're definitely insane, and second of all, you still committed the acts which killed them, which makes it your fault.

253

u/vanishing300 19h ago

You clearly don’t understand how the insanity plea works.

-49

u/IMNOTMATT 16h ago

Take a look at how the insanity plea came about.

A senator friends with the president at the time beat the living shit out of someone near the white house and the pres didn't want the senator to go to jail for murder so this was the solution to fix the murder issue....

Shouldn't be a thing tbh

42

u/Camicatsc 14h ago

Could you give more information about this specific event? I’m a criminology student, and as far as I’m aware, the insanity/NGRI plea (as the public generally knows it) is drawn from an 1843 British case resulting in the M’Naghten Rule. It could be that I’m not far enough into my studies yet, but I’d love to be able to learn more on what you’re talking about.

12

u/Nihilistic_Marmot 8h ago

Very good chance the person you are responding to is just making it up.

4

u/Camicatsc 8h ago

I know, haha. Sometimes people are more willing to admit they’re bullshitting if you’re nice about it :/

-119

u/ganja_and_code 19h ago

Does it give a crazy ass person grace for committing a crazy ass crime?

Because if no, then clearly she's guilty, and if yes, then I clearly understand well enough.

93

u/MaeBelleLien 19h ago

It just means she'll spend the rest of her life in an institution instead of prison.

-24

u/ExtremePrivilege 17h ago

Actually not remotely true. Massachusetts requires a 180 day psychiatric hold. She no longer has PPP or PPD so they will release her at the end of that 180 days. Likely with a 6-7 figure GoFundMe.

If she gets a NGRI verdict she’s essentially free.

17

u/FamiliarRip8558 17h ago

She tried to kill herself before trial and is not described as a functional all there person

She ain't leaving the looney bin

11

u/100thBlade 15h ago

Dr. Avram Mack interviewed her twice at Tewksbury Hospital on April 10 and 12, 2026. He performed a mental-status examination and testified that there were essentially no abnormalities: she was friendly and cooperative, maintained appropriate eye contact, spoke normally, had goal-directed thoughts, and showed no remarkable cognitive or thought-process disturbance.

So nah. Also her defense lawyer said she was an amazing person etc etc.

2

u/Rich-Canary1279 13h ago

She has been sane enough and goal directed enough to push push push for a not guilty plea though! If someone is really distraught about their actions and really doesn't care about their life, they plead guilty and ask for the death penalty.

13

u/Mec26 16h ago

On average, peeps spend TWICE as long in institutions as jails for the same crime. She;s released when multiple doctors and a presiding judge all agree she’s no longer a danger to society. Which is often never.

-7

u/100thBlade 15h ago

She's paralyzed bud. On what possible basis is she going to be a threat to society?

Gonna think mean thoughts at people? Shoot people mean looks?

7

u/Mec26 15h ago

… disabled people can hurt people.

0

u/EclipseIndustries 14h ago

Seriously, how many movies or TV shows hide the bomb inside the wheelchair?

A lot. It's a trope.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/100thBlade 14h ago

Its all doesnt matter anyways, recent medical examinations of her in august give her close to a clean bill mental health.

-3

u/gaysexpornography 16h ago

You hate women so much you have been subsumed into your own alternate reality

11

u/AvoidingIowa 15h ago

I just hate women that murder their children tbh.

2

u/100thBlade 14h ago

No he's actually correct Mr. GaySexPornography.

She'll be observed for a small period of time but recent mental evaluations are fairly positive for her.

As soon as she is deemed to not be a threat to the public or herself it is not legal, especially in Mas, to hold her.

I am providing no commentary on whether I think this is correct or not, this is simply the law.

-39

u/100thBlade 19h ago edited 10h ago

Thats absolutely not how it goes when people get a not guilty for reasons of insanity verdict.

They'll go to an institution till they're deemed not a danger to the public.

Thats how the law works, whether people like it or not. Confinement in a mental institition in this state is exclusively concerned with whether the person confined is a danger to themselves or society.

Once they are concluded to be a danger to neither, they are released.

6

u/Not_a_Rodeo_Clown 16h ago

You doubt it but your opinion is uninformed and wrong.

4

u/100thBlade 15h ago edited 15h ago

Yeah, its actually the opposite.

I am right, and everyone downvoting me is wrong, because I actually know the law and they're posting based on vibes and what they think ought to happen. This whole thread should be submitted to Confidently Incorrect.

People are not confined to mental institutions as punishment. They are confined there until they are not a threat to the public or themselves, which is functionally right now for Clancy, as you can read about, in this link that you won't read:

https://www.lindsayclancyarchive.online/transcripts/day-18

Specifically Dr. Avram Mack's examination. He interviewed her twice at Tewksbury Hospital on April 10 and 12, 2026. He performed a mental-status examination and testified that there were essentially no abnormalities: she was friendly and cooperative, maintained appropriate eye contact, spoke normally, had goal-directed thoughts, and showed no remarkable cognitive or thought-process disturbance.

-3

u/100thBlade 19h ago

Ok people are downvoting me, but I am right:

"In the United States, the closest equivalent is Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). The exact consequences depend on the state, but the general pattern is that the person is acquitted criminally and then committed to a psychiatric institution, often a secure forensic hospital. They ordinarily do not simply go home.

A useful concrete example is the federal system. After an NGRI verdict, the defendant is automatically committed for psychiatric/psychological evaluation. A hearing must occur within 40 days. At that hearing, the defendant generally has to show that releasing them would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious property damage because of a present mental disease or defect."

Lindsay is not presently mentally ill, in a technical sense. She is wheelchair bound and has no more kids to murder.

NGRI result means she is back in society, likely in 6 months or less. Don't get mad at me for saying the truth.

13

u/WillowSubstantial889 19h ago

This is absolutely true in principle. If they rule that she is not a danger to anyone then I see no further reason to keep her in an institution given those rules. To be clear, I think she should be in an institution for the rest of her life but for that to happen they would have to find her guilty.

5

u/McdoManaguer 18h ago

Are you a lawyer ? If the answer is anything but a very clear YES, people should ignore you because you clearly dont have any idea of what the fuck you are talking about.

5

u/ecstasyinwaves 18h ago

except they literally do and you guys fucking dont? insanity pleas do not absolve people of guilt. Theres LITERALLY a woman still institutionalized because, GUESS WHAT, she PLEAD INSANITY FOR KILLING HER CHILDREN IN THE FUCKING 90S!!!! OMG! Its almost like WE DO HAVE A FUCKING PRECEDENT FOR HOW INSANITY WORKS LEGALLY SPEAKING.

God i fucking hate the internet.

4

u/Bored_Amalgamation 18h ago

You're using a single example to express a generalization.

God i fucking hate the internet.

God I wish people who knew only a little would know enough that they should shut the fuck up.

0

u/100thBlade 18h ago edited 10h ago

You actually dont understand the relevant body of law:

"For ordinary involuntary commitment, Massachusetts would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt essentially three things: that she is presently mentally ill; that because of that illness, release would create a likelihood of serious physical harm to herself or others; and that there isn't an adequate less-restrictive alternative."

...

  1. She isnt presently mentally ill.
  2. Shes paralyzed, unless you think shes faking it.

NGRI trial results are backwards looking.

Ongoing confinement is FORWARD looking.

IE: It doesn't matter what she did in the past, all that matters is if she is released will she be a danger to society.

If the answer is NO, then she gets released. Thats just how Massachusetts law works.

0

u/McdoManaguer 18h ago

Read what the other guy said dumbass. I agree with you

→ More replies (0)

2

u/100thBlade 18h ago

Are juries composed of lawyers?

Is the section I quoted wrong or right?

Address the argument.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation 18h ago edited 17h ago

Being a lawyer is no barrier to understanding the legal system. In fact, we go through life, all of us, expected to know it

Edit: holy shit are y'all coasting through shit.

-2

u/JeanArtemis 18h ago

Your right, without the special law magic lawyers inherit from their masters on graduating from lawyer academy on Mount Olympus, it's impossible to access the MIGHTY TOMES OF LAW. Truly such things are a mystery utterly ineffable to the lay person! That's why hundreds of prisoners every year somehow manage to teach themselves enough law with the sparse resources available to them behind bars to fight their own cases for parole OH WAIT!

FOH with "only lawyers can understand the law" you sound the type of mfkr to tell your SO they have to have a phd in psychology to know they're being gaslit.

1

u/McdoManaguer 18h ago

I'm not gonna listen to someone about a subject they have no qualifications for, sorry if that offends you and your lack of education/qualifications.

I wouldnt listen to a Barista about my car problems, would you ?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation 18h ago

They hated you, for you spoke the truth

3

u/100thBlade 16h ago

Reddit is tough for me, because I'm always saying stuff thats objectively true, but makes redditors mad.

Thanks broski.

0

u/pompousrompus 15h ago

It must be hard always objectively spitting truths on a platform and the platform disagrees with you lol

67

u/makingburritos 19h ago

No one is saying they are not at fault. They’re simply saying they weren’t in their right mind at the time. If you’re insane, you should be in a mental health facility. That’s the only thing that the insanity plea allows.

-29

u/ganja_and_code 19h ago

Nobody who kills their kids is "in their right mind," and being a psycho isn't an excuse to kill your kids. If we can agree on both those things, then we can agree she's guilty.

40

u/duncandun 19h ago

There is a world of difference between making a bad choice and being in a state of psychosis, ie literally experiencing hallucination or delusion so great that they alter the reality that you experience

1

u/ganja_and_code 19h ago

If you're her kid, is there a world of difference?

8

u/duncandun 19h ago

No of course not, but the case wasn’t to determine if she killed the kids it was to determine if she should be in a mental institution or a prison for the rest of her life. Is there a world of difference in that distinction to her kids?

4

u/ganja_and_code 18h ago

Neither is as cruel as murdering your children in cold blood, so obviously give her whichever of the two is more unpleasant.

-2

u/100thBlade 18h ago

People don't get confined to mental institutions for "the rest of their life."

They get send there until they are deemed not a danger to themselves or others.

For them to remain in an institution it needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they continue to remain a danger to themselves or others.

Mas law is particularly clear on this last point.

0

u/duncandun 17h ago

It is exceptionally rare for murderers to be released from mental health institutions in the US

0

u/Mec26 16h ago

Beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Multiple doctors and a judge have to agree they’re no longer a danger.

1

u/100thBlade 14h ago

Actually, mas. law does specifically use reasonable doubt verbiage, unlike many other states.

But broadly we're in agreement.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/makingburritos 17h ago

So you think severely mentally ill people should be put in the same category as people who do crimes with the full knowledge that they’re hurting people, but just don’t care? Rapists who do it to get off, armed robbers who kill people just because they want their shit, or people who abuse or neglect their children because they’re just too fuckin lazy? Those people are the same as someone who doesn’t comprehend what they’re doing has permanent consequences and is not living in a discernible reality?

Thats an exceptionally wild take, I’ll give you that. Your lack of nuance is next level.

5

u/ganja_and_code 17h ago edited 17h ago

I think if someone kills their kids, it matters more that they did it than why.

1

u/protonpack 10h ago

So you think severely mentally ill people should be put in the same category as people who do crimes with the full knowledge that they’re hurting people, but just don’t care?

Tbh I think all those people are probably mentally ill. It feels like kind of a blurred line to me.

4

u/dessert-er 9h ago

Evil people exist without being mentally ill, and for the insanity plea to apply it needs to be proven that they’re so detached from reality that they basically don’t even know who they are or what they’re doing, which is very different than 99.9% of crimes where fucked up people do fucked up things.

1

u/Mec26 16h ago

Did it yes. Guilty of the exact crimes legally described? Nah.

She can still go to an institution tho/

-27

u/100thBlade 19h ago

Except she had temporary insanity for like a day.

So not guilty for reasons of insanity basically means she walks or will walk very soon.

22

u/Mec26 16h ago

She had insanity, and the diagnosis, for far longer than that. The father and grandmother had both been told never to allow her alone with the kids. Like… the issues were known.

3

u/tired-of-the-shit 19h ago

In order to get insanity you have to have been in a state where you are no longer connected to reality.

There’s a difference between someone who kills there kids because they here a voice from god telling them to do it, or they believe a delusion that by somehow killing their kids their saving them, etc and someone that pre plans it or who gets so angry one day they just snap and shack the baby or they decide that their gonna kill themselves and so their gonna kill their kids to.

And if they do get the insanity plea they’re going to a state psychiatric prison and will be monitored closely for the rest of their lives if they ever get released.

2

u/Shanice712 11h ago

Agreed and State run Asylum prisons allows the prisoners to determine EACH year they are when they believe they are "cured" and with that can be let out. Meaning Lindsay can take a stay there, acting accordingly and persuade/trick the Mental Health staff in her FIRST YEAR, that she is indeed "cured" and can return back to society🤦🏾‍♀️. THAT IS SCARY and she shouldn't go there, only to prison prison and serve out life sentence or the unalive penalty. JUSTICE FOR CORA, DAWSON & CALLAN!!!🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾

0

u/pan-re 17h ago

Sure, then she goes to a mental health facility.