A juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy is sharing new details about what he said happened inside the jury room that led to a mistrial in the case of the Massachusetts woman facing first-degree murder charges for the 2023 deaths of her three young children.

Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the 12-person jury, told ABC News' Aaron Katersky that the lone holdout juror who prevented a unanimous verdict did not show any evidence explaining his vote.

"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie, 25, said in an interview Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 days ago (7 children)

You are trying to attach rational arguments to a totally emotional opinion.

The law requires that the defendant had formed criminal intent when they committed their offense. Shooting someone in the head is murder, but if you killed that person to stop them from killing someone else, then there was no criminal intent, and it's not murder.

Yes, she killed her kids, and yes, she knew she was killing her kids, but she was also in the grip of a terrible psychosis, that prevented her from forming criminal intent.

And it was never about releasing her, it was always about the type of place she would reside. A prison, or a prison hospital. A person with your type of thinking overplayed their hand, and got her released instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • she was also in the grip of a terrible psychosis

    So she says. I mean https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/post-partum-psychosis/ would suggest... probably not.

    Also, drunk people or people on drugs... who aren't aware of their actions... is the implication there that they're not responsible because they were prevented from forming criminal intent? 3 children were hunted down and murdered. Then a staged suicide.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

    The law doesn’t matter ethically.

    You’re making it sound like psychosis is some sort of demon that takes over your body and makes you do things against your will as if that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    You've clearly never been around a person deep in the throes of postpartum psychosis. I have, and it was fucking terrifying. There is no demon possession....so stop going on about that like its some gotcha. It is a condition where the mother can have a full mental break and fully believe things are happening that in no way, shape or form are happening. And the reactions to then are wildly intense

    This is a legal case, not an ethics case. Though that debate has it's merits; just not here, talking about the legal ramifications of the killings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

    I didn’t make any legal claims. What exactly does any of what you wrote have to do with any of what I wrote? Or are you just ranting.

    Intentionally killing children is wrong. You could be a rabid dog or a psychotic homo sapien. The rules don’t change depending on your species or flavor of crazy. The laws should reflect this fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    You've been walking in circles on this in every reply. No one thinks what happened is right. No one is defending her actions.

    The debate you've been dancing around is whether or not she was criminally insane at the time. Not whether or not she was innocent. And going off about how insane derives from demonic possession is not relevant, not pertinent, and a bad faith argument

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    I’m not debating how the law is (or the details of this case), my claim is about how it should be, which is written in enormous letters and you still somehow missed it.

    “Demonic possession” indicates the approximate level of ignorance required to think that “criminal insanity” should be a legal option for a defendant in a case about killing children.

  • source
  • parent