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
[–] 6 points 1 day 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