Does gender matter?

[Walker]

However, one juror followed the instructions perfectly. He had a reasonable doubt that the murderer was not in psychosis, that in fact she knew what she was doing and she knew it was bad, knew it was wrong, based on the evidence presented in court rather than based on the jury members (nurses) who were relying on their preconceptions and thus biased.

WTF! Are you telling us that you too have no understanding of "reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. It is NOT bi-directional. A jury is asked to decide if GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. Not INNOCENT beyond a treasonable doubt.

what to know about the 'insanity defense'
https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/01/ma ... -liability

Under Massachusetts law, when someone pleads not guilty by reason of a “lack of criminal responsibility" — the state’s technical term for the insanity defense — the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crimes.

Now you understand what is meant by a stacked deck.

Weren't you even curious enough to check?

Are you too an elicitor?

[MikeNovack]

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/01/ma ... -liability

Under Massachusetts law, when someone pleads not guilty by reason of a “lack of criminal responsibility" — the state’s technical term for the insanity defense — the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crimes.

Now you understand what is meant by a stacked deck.

Weren't you even curious enough to check?

Are you too an elicitor?

What to know about ANY defense. Precisely, it is the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt (not any doubt)

So when the defense is "not criminally responsible" the prosecution needs to prove sane (NOT insane) beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that burden met here? Especially since the prosecution's expert witnesses all expressed doubt? (more likely sane than not is insufficient). The juror in question believed more likely sane BUT expressed had doubts.

The juror is saying, I have (reasonable) doubts that she was sane but I am going to insist on voting to convict because she killed her children. Essentially the juror is saying "I don't recognize "insanity" as a defense".

Do you know the meaning of "elicitor"? What immune response to you imagine I am triggering?

[Walker]

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/01/ma ... -liability

Under Massachusetts law, when someone pleads not guilty by reason of a “lack of criminal responsibility" — the state’s technical term for the insanity defense — the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crimes.

Now you understand what is meant by a stacked deck.

Weren't you even curious enough to check?

Are you too an elicitor?

What to know about ANY defense. Precisely, it is the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt (not any doubt)

So when the defense is "not criminally responsible" the prosecution needs to prove sane (NOT insane) beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that burden met here? Especially since the prosecution's expert witnesses all expressed doubt? (more likely sane than not is insufficient). The juror in question believed more likely sane BUT expressed had doubts.

The juror is saying, I have (reasonable) doubts that she was sane but I am going to insist on voting to convict because she killed her children. Essentially the juror is saying "I don't recognize "insanity" as a defense".

Do you know the meaning of "elicitor"? What immune response to you imagine I am triggering?

No, he was saying that he had reasonable doubts that she was insane, that in fact she was sane when she murdered.

That he said this or that in the deliberations does not override what he finally decided, 'specially when the eyewitness jurors to what he said and thought are disagreeable harridans.

It's well recognized that the burden upon the prosecution to prove sanity of the defendant in Mass., rather than the burden to prove insanity of the defendant, is a bit of a logic twister, since she performed what many would preconceive to be a crazy act.

[Walker]

Do you know the meaning of "elicitor"? What immune response to you imagine I am triggering?

An elicitor is one who elicits.
To elicit is to invite a ration of appropriate participation that might budge a wont.

To the eleven, this link illustrates tyranny of the individual.
Thanks to the media and disgruntled jurors, the same link illustrates martyrdom.
https://patriotpost.us/memes/1000870-stand-firm

Apparently you aim to trigger.

[MikeNovack]

Apparently you aim to trigger.

Can I have a clear statement from you.

a) IF the juror had doubts about whether sane or not how was the juror supposed to decide IF basing on the rule "if reasonable doubt about guilt supposed to acquit".

b) Since the juror refused to acquit, which do you think was the case? No reasonable doubt she was sane or disagreed with that rule. (although did swear to apply it)

c) As I said probably ALL THE JURORS had doubts about whether she was sane or not. What the relevance of that since the rule is one-sided. You might want to compare with/discuss the Scottish rules whereby there are THREE possible verdicts, innocent, not proven, or guilty. Might I suggest that a Scottish jury faced with this case almost certainly returned "not proven".

[Walker]

Apparently you aim to trigger.

Can I have a clear statement from you.

Sure. The lone juror believed that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murderer was sane during the murder. Apparently this is enough to hang the jury, because that is what happened.

[MikeNovack]

Can I have a clear statement from you.

Sure. The lone juror believed that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murderer was sane during the murder. Apparently this is enough to hang the jury, because that is what happened.
[/quote]

But that is contrary to (reported) fact. Supposedly that juror DID say had reasonable doubts about sanity.

[MikeNovack]

I have now seen reported exactly what that juror was arguing, that she PLANNED what she did, that she KNEW what she did.

I cannot decide between two possibilities, both related to that juror's understanding of insanity and insanity as a legal defense.

A) Possibly not understanding what to expect of psychotic persons, never experienced interacting with any. In other words, never met anybody clearly insane but able to plan and carry OUT actions, even actions rational IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR INSANITY.

B) Not actually accepting insanity as legal defense. There were times in our legal history where insanity as a defense didn't men just being insane but so disfunctional as to not even know WHAT they were doing.

"A" would not be a problem except it was reported that the juror did doubt her sanity. So I think more of "B" in the mix. The juror (strongly) felt that only insanity so disabling that person didn't know WHAT they were doing (as opposed to the WHY being totally off the wall).

[Walker]

(rewritten for formatting)

[Walker]

Walker, have you ever sat on a jury?

After the Clancy trial, if anyone gets a summons for jury duty …
… threat of persecution and prosecution is now grounds to be excused.

It’s not official yet, but a crafty lawyer could certainly make the case, although it wouldn’t bode well for the justice system in Mass.

The grounds to be excused is brought to you courtesy of Clancy’s defense attorney, who wants to make a particular juror’s life even more challenging than he already has made it. His reasoning?

Obviously, if there is another trial the unethical defense attorney wants to intimidate the next jury, but that must remain unsaid because it is illegal. Also, getting the persecuted juror’s decision nullified could affect whether or not there can even be another trial.

[Walker]

Can I have a clear statement from you.

Sure. The lone juror believed that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murderer was sane during the murder. Apparently this is enough to hang the jury, because that is what happened.

The juror has had to retain an attorney, to protect himself.

But that* is contrary to (reported) fact. Supposedly that juror DID say had reasonable doubts about sanity.

The attorney said that reported fact is a flat-out lie.


*"that" refers to what the lone juror believed.

[Walker]

If a woman could have possibly been the lone holdout in the Clancy case, would that defense attorney who is now going after the Haitian Christian Man who dared to follow his conscience (applied to the evidence presented), persecute her?

Would gender matter?

I know what I think.

[Immanuel Can]

If a woman could have possibly been the lone holdout in the Clancy case, would that defense attorney who is now going after the Haitian Christian Man who dared to follow his conscience (applied to the evidence presented), persecute her?

Would gender matter?

I know what I think.

Gender and race. It was clearly a stunning setback to the Left's narrative, when the holdout juror ended up being a black immigrant. They reeled for days over that one.

But they've found their feet now. He was male. He was conservative. Yep, we can hunt him now.

But had the holdout been something like a female, aboriginal, women's-justice activist, their loyalties to a rich, white baby-strangler might have been lessened somewhat. Maybe not. But maybe.

[Walker]

The juror is also an avowed Christian, and in deep blue Massachusetts. The way Clancy’s defense attorney has been behaving, he might even successfully argue that the lone juror’s Christian faith was prejudicial to the defense and that would be acceptable to a judge or jury, since this is all happening in Massachusetts, where the governor recently signed legislation making abortion legal anytime during the pregnancy, i.e., right up until birth.

And if that sounds silly, yesterday in a hearing to determine if there should be another trial, the same defense lawyer told the judge that the prosecution did not investigate who actually committed the murder of the three children, and there was no proof of who actually committed the murder. In other words, there's reasonable doubt that Clancy is even the murderer.

He says the entire case is speculation and explains why. On top of that, he says no evidence was presented at trial by the prosecution that she even confessed to the murders.

It’s an entirely new defense, never-mind that during trial he never disputed that she is the murderer, and conceded that she did the crime. Interesting reasoning. Will it work? He’s aiming to get the charges dismissed by this judge, or on appeal. At any rate, everything is on hold until early November, and the attorney hasn’t been muzzled with a gag order, yet.

It’s a multi-significant, ethical situation for society going on here, and the sex of the defendant is a factor.

With that same jury, if Clancy was a man he would be figuratively swinging from a yardarm … even though “Men can get pregnant too, thus be afflicted with postpartum psychosis too.” (to quote Leftist logic).

[Walker]

There used to be only two genders – male and female – but now we see a proliferation of more than twenty genders. For some people, their gender and pronouns are big deal, but for me, I don’t care what my gender is or of people mistake my gender. What matters to me is my character, whatever my gender may be.

Since the thread isn’t exclusively about “gender,” the interest in character gives rise to a Christian question.

Because everyone is a sinner, does it take character to admit that one’s character is corrupted away from an ideal of what should be, i.e., the rules?

Or, does knowledge of “what should be,” just require truthful self-awareness, since everyone knows right from wrong, and because that innate knowledge of right and wrong also correlates with Christian rules.

Because of that turn the other cheek advice, Christianity is probably the most persecuted surviving religion. Easier target than more militant religions. Paradoxically, Christianity is also one of the most popular religions, if not the most popular. (Fact checkers get busy here.)

Belief in Christianity is not required to think about this*, although non-belief has been known to generate distain for such considerations.


*(non-Christians are ever so eager to declare what they are, as an excuse to not think about what they don't believe.)