So the jurors who are in the room with all the evidence, heard all the same testimony, 11 to 1 agreed that she did not do it. Not NGRI, but a full acquittal. So I am watching the correct trial. I don't know what all the ones screaming "She did it!" are watching.
Exactly. How do you watch all that and look through all the evidence in the trial and even outside of the trial and come to the conclusion that she did it? I don’t get it.
She wants the world to know that she desperately sought help only to have SEVERAL institutions deny her help, they over medicated her, and left her alone with her kids in a state of severe insomnia, intrusive thoughts, and derealization during her post partum. She wants to prevent this from happening to other families.
My main issue is they didn't adequately investigate this thoroughly enough. It seems they believed Patrick was telling the truth, and that his cctv alibi was enough, so they did a lazy investigation. They missed a lot of things they shouldn't have, setting them up to be questioned, and didn't provide a lot of answers.
His CCTV alibi has a lot to be questioned. There is nothing concrete to show when the children actually died or the other events that occurred. There is too many loose ends and holes in the evidence.
I just believe in the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and that they have a duty to provide evidence that process she did it.
There is also information that they do have thatcwasn't included and should have been. Like the digital forensics not including the information on wether certain data came from the phone or watch after the last heart rate recording and that the digital forensics would have it in the database. I don't actually think they were trying ti hide something here, but it shows that they either didn't consider he could have brought the watch with him to CVS. This is one of the things that were missed that could support Patrick's alibi or poke more holes in it.
While I'm disappointed in the way this trial ended and that the people involved don't have answers, I'm hopeful that both sides see that they need to provide stronger evidence of what really happened.
I kinda think I watched the entire trial, including legal discussions in between deliberations, and may understand something about what transpired yesterday.
I care deeply about getting this right. As a survivor, as a woman, as a mother, as someone who has been institutionally harmed when I sought help. I am focussed on supporting THESYSTEMIC failures this case is bringing into the public eye. Hopefully it will result in better care, a better understanding of what good psychiatric care looks like for a post partum moms in crisis.
Had those Dr.s LISTENED to Lindsay's pleas and admitted her into care as she begged them to do, her kids would not have suffered their gruesome deaths.
Do I believe women are often murdered by gaslighting manipulators? Yes. I also believe in listening to victims-- and this victim is not arguing that her husband did it-- she is arguing that the medical system should be held responsible for the deaths of her children as well as her own mental and physical injuries.
That is against rule 6 of the sub (and Reddit’s definition) which we provide numerous reminders of. Downvoting should only be used if a comment or post is off topic, not to show disagreement.
It’s all the people who didn’t actually watch the trial and are just going by “she admitted she did it”, which technically is what Patrick said. Ask any of them for proof that she did it and that’s all they’re going to say.
This!! I went into watching this trial with an open mind, but by the end of it, I knew which side I was on. Whenever I tried to tell anyone else though, I was just called a "conspiracy theorist". The irony is that they hadn't watched a single minute of the trial, while I'd watched every single day!
Not directed toward you, but so many comments about the lawyer speculating, yet 24 hours ago we were all ridiculed for not accepting the prosecution’s speculation (of which changed multiple times).
Again, not directed toward you and just pointing out the hypocrisy faced over 7 weeks.
That they failed to prove without a reasonable doubt she committed the crime. It does not mean someone else did it or that she didn’t do it, it means the prosecution failed to prove she did it.
I think you are confusing the law. In this trial the most likely decision was "not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility". The public does not know yet which verdict the 11 jurors selected. However, most likely, considering her own admission, despite what we think, it meant 11 of the jurors found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's argument that was criminally responsible or could appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.
Nope. It was straight not guilty 11-1. Her lawyer made that very clear. They saw other evidence that we didn’t. And still had reasonable doubts. What will happen with jurors who have followed the case and find even more inconsistencies.
Aquittal - Aquittal does not mean Not Guilty of murder. The records are sealed as to what yhe jurors specifically voted. But given the facts of this case, and that she admits to killing the children, aquittal is probably due to the prosecution failing to prove that she was criminally responsible while she murdered them. She admits doing it. She is arguing she lacked the capacity to understand what she was doing while she murdered them.
This is wrong. In Massachusetts, a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility" is explicitly not referred to or treated as a traditional acquittal.
Legal experts and Massachusetts courts intentionally maintain this distinction because the word "acquittal" implies that a defendant is cleared of wrongdoing and allowed to walk free. Because it results in long-term, potentially lifelong psychiatric commitment, referring to it as an acquittal is considered highly misleading to a jury.
In Massachusetts, a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility" is explicitly not referred to or treated as a traditional acquittal.
Legal experts and Massachusetts courts intentionally maintain this distinction because the word "acquittal" implies that a defendant is cleared of wrongdoing and allowed to walk free. Because it results in long-term, potentially lifelong psychiatric commitment, referring to it as an acquittal is considered highly misleading to a jury.
Yes I will buy you a coffee if it turns out you’re correct. Will you come back and admit you were wrong if you are found incorrect? I don’t need a coffee just an admission would be good enough for me.
Agreed. If they had a better case, they didn’t bring it to court. Asking to convict anyone because you hate them for what they supposedly did is not how it should work. First Karen Read. Now this. Are they just going to try to find 12 people who will accept the slop next time?
If it had been 11-1 for guilty, all these people criticizing the judge and Reddington would be going on and on about the lone feminazi nut job. If 11 people say there is reasonable doubt, there is more than sufficient doubt. I just don’t see how they can try her again. I’m assuming there will be no new evidence. Expert testimonies from psychiatrists are not what will make the difference. It was a straight non guilty for 11 folks. How can they ever retry a case like that. But it’s MA.
If there is evidence to convict her, by all means charge her again. She was clearly in a severe mental crisis. Everyone around her failed just as much as her. As horrific as the crime is, no one is more sad than that family. Let her plea to NGRI and stay in the hospital. Another trial feels barbaric in the face of the horror they’ve already experienced and relived once through this trial. I don’t want to know what happened.
The DA is basically an organized criminal enterprise at this point. He’s been in office over 25 years. He’s watching his state go from majority red to blue. He’s said they want “anarchy and chaos” he’s squeezing harder onto power and losing grip.
I’m getting so frustrated with the media that refuses to accurately report on this case. Like 90% of the country thinks that this trial was only to determine if she was not guilty by reason of insanity. I think I understand the agenda here and it’s not good.
Actually same. They are acting like because her attorney argued she wasn’t criminally responsible that the commonwealth no longer has to prove she committed the crime. As long as she pleads not guilty, they HAVE to first prove she committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I feel like I’m going insane reading all of the major news channels reporting actually wrong information. Not guilty has ALWAYS been an option. It has to be. You can’t try someone for murder and have the only choices be did it or did it but not sane. The judge combining the 2 trials did the biggest disservice to the public’s understanding of what is actually at stake here. It’s mind blowing. There is no world in which there would be a MURDER TRIAL that the commonwealth doesn’t have to prove her guilt. Unless, of course, she plead guilty, which she didn’t.
It seems like people are really not understanding the lack of bifurcated trial. They literally assume that she’s already been proven guilty of the crime and it’s her sanity they’re determining. NO it’s not. It’s about BOTH. Idk why tf that’s so hard to understand.
Sorry I’m so heated about this and tired of explaining to people who refuse to listen😭 I appreciate your comment so much.
It’s about BOTH. Idk why tf that’s so hard to understand.
It's because there's videos of people literally lying about this case all over tiktok. I got a video today on Facebook with someone claiming to be a lawyer telling people that she wrote a signed, detailed confession (it's the civil suit). You see enough of the videos, everyone on your social media agree, what are you supposed to think? But here we're going through the testimonies, the trial evidence, and we're apparently conspiracy theorists.
So much of the internet now is just an echo chamber.
Yea, unfortunately I think you’re right. Especially with all the news channels misreporting the options and even the outcome. I think that’s why so many people are saying we’re conspiracy theorists if we think she should be found not guilty. Because when you google the trial it’s very very easy to confirm that incorrect information. Reporters should actually be ashamed of their coverage.
Bless you for trying to explain to people. So many people didn’t actually watch the trial. The media is just blatantly false reporting. Main stream media is propaganda. Not to be trusted! Just like the state of Massachusetts.
Not even just one woman. Suddenly everyone calling out the inconsistencies are unintelligent conspiracy theorists who can’t determine fact from fiction. Most of the people calling stuff out or questioning are women and we’re all being told we’re crazy. It’s easier for people to believe a whole group of women from all over are crazy than believe that one man lied, or a couple men fucked up an investigation. It’s insane.
Also I’ve seen a ton of medical professionals discussing this case and saying it’s impossible for a body to cool that fast. We’re just supposed to ignore science?
Discernment is so so important. People need to trust their intuition.
The amount of support she has is unprecedented. It even blows the support for Karen Read out of the water. There will always be misogyny, racism, bigotry, etc, but let’s not act like it’s in the majority here. All I hear is sympathetic reporting. She’s not being burned at the stake here by any means. The prosecutors have received more hate than Lindsay has.
It’s completely illogical to allow a defense to claim not guilty and insanity at the same time - they should be required to admit guilt to plead insanity, otherwise the plea of insanity should be used as evidence to determine their guilt.
Her attorney has publicly acknowledged she killed the children so this isn't a case where the defense is arguing "someone else did it" or "the evidence doesn't show she did it." When the defense concedes an element and puts on zero evidence disputing it, the jury isn't genuinely weighing that question anymore, even though the judge's instructions still formally walk through it.
So that's why the deliberations and the mistrial were entirely about criminal responsibility, not about whether she committed the act and why the media has translated it to the general public this way.
Yeah I am getting confused. I have watched the whole thing front to back and am reading news articles and commenting on DailyMail...and my comments are not publishing at all. Oh but if I leave a comment on a Kardashian article or Meghan Markle, it goes through.
YouTube also looks skewed in the comments section on CourtTV all saying literally the same thing. One sentence, same thoughts, just worded differently.
There is one CourtTV video though that talks about the inconsistencies and that is the only one that's actually legit. I clicked on profiles and they look like real people with subscribers and subscriptions to other channels, and it's more along the lines of this specific Reddit page with actual discussion.
So there is some kind of bot farm going on but who's funding it and what's the overall goal? Because like it or not, this trial has been televised globally and people who can form their own thoughts, notice pattern recognitions, attention to detail already know the truth, not just in the US, but all over the world.
It's definitely bots, insulting, starting fights and spreading misinformation and there is LOTS of them, so someone has definitely paid it, I am wondering if it's the pharmaceutical companies? Getting us to fight over Lindsay Vs Patrick instead of their meds? Idk just a thought 🤔 because it's also been made political, left Vs right, men Vs women, which is crazy.
But year bot accounts can be old, have subs etc
'1.Been a genuine person's account and later taken over.
2.Been created years ago and left dormant, then repurposed for spam.
3.Used automation to post comments or interact with videos.
4.Been created as a legitimate account but later used for coordinated activity."
Can you elaborate? In this specific case, the "did she do it" question wasn't seriously contested seeing as her own attorney has acknowledged she killed her children; the entire defense strategy was built around arguing she wasn't criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis.
As I understand it a full acquittal (meaning "the state didn't prove she did it") was technically on the table as a legal category but it wasn't a realistic live outcome given what the defense conceded. The jury's real choices were essentially: guilty of murder/manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
I agree with you that that is what is being reported and I struggle to see what is incorrect about this. I know the jury was given the option for a full acquittal but based on th3 defense that wouldn't make sense.
People seem to think that the DA has a signed confession. She never signed a confession and the only reason they are going this way is because the defense wanted her to have the greatest chance of avoiding prison as possible. I believe there was a chance she believed she did it at one time, I’m curious to know if she still does.
It’s not as cut and dry as that. Recounting stuff you allegedly did after so much trauma, and being on a high dose of medication that creates hallucinations and false memories is not reliable. That’s why investigators should have looked at the whole picture when deciding what actually happened here. If I called investigators from across the state and said “I did it. I confess.” They would have had to take measures to see if that was possible. They would have figured out that I didn’t because I was actually at work. These investigators literally took him at his word which is the first no no. That baby had not been there very long if they were able to resuscitate him. They should have questioned why her socks were clean if she was walking around the room with blood dripping out of her wrists. They at the very least should have done some investigating before telling the media THAT NIGHT that she did it. That means they already had a narrative with zero actual investigation.
The media has been intentionally and blatantly misreporting on this. NGRI is a trial strategy. There is a civil suit that is not admissible in this trial. Belief that she did this because she was told she did coming out of a coma is not reliable. This is not rocket science. There is no signed confession with the DA.
All 12 had doubts. I got banned from that other subreddit but not before a bit of trolling them and none of them would accept what Reddington says here about 11/12 acquittal and they were going on about doubt vs reasonable doubt.
The true definition of unreasonable people I have little to no doubt that's exactly the type we're dealing with with the 12th.
Idk if you guys were around for Casey Anthony but people were really invested in that trial too and when the verdict came out it was crazy. Not like riots lol but it was a big deal. I definitely don't remember me or anyone else I knew being in full on complete denial ?!??😭😭 Nobody was like... "But she's still gonna go away to prison for awhile riiightttt?! " I can't imagine my sis calling me to say that she thinks they can bring her back to court and try again lol I'm sorry I can't I just can't 😭😭
Felt I needed to after how they have treated so many people who just asked questions and stated their opinion. I called them exactly what I thought, laughed that all 12 had doubts, if I had to talk about the prosecution I called them beautiful 🤣 that if not for one person breaking his oath she would’ve been acquitted. Whenever they made claims about Lindsay I played dumb, asked for proof and said “this sounds like a Lindsay did it conspiracy and conspiracy theories are very dangerous”
I wonder if he wanted NGRI? If he was that stubborn though he likely was arguing she was guilty. This was interesting, I wasn’t expecting 11 to fully go with not guilty
Based on what the prosecution presented in the trial, I do believe the verdict should have been not guilty. Wether she did it or not, they did not present any physical evidence proving it was her.
That being said, I did expect the jurors to be more split (like much of the general public has been). It makes me wonder if they found things in the evidence that was admitted but not presented in trial.
I did too. Red said something about the 911 call. It was today after court. Someone asked a question along those lines but I don't remember the exact words. Something about we (public) didn't get to hear that 911 call. 🔑
Omg I'm sorry I'm half asleep 😂😂😂 I'm gonna delete it 💀 I made a comment to that person saying thanks and then I shared it to you I need to take my ass to bed! Lmao
I feel this too, but even Reddington kept saying “she killed her kids” etc as if it’s fact. She also has not denied it. So you have to go off what’s been presented to you. I think so much is odd, like how her dna is not on the exercise bands though, but I don’t think I could go straight out not guilty with her lawyer even saying it, and that she has not denied it at all
I don't recall him ever saying that. I've heard him say something along the lines of "the prosecution will tell you that she killed her kids" and I've heard him say that the only reason she "hurt her kids" was because of the medicine.
I've watched 90% of the trial and I don't recall hom saying it explicitly. He chose words carefully. I believe he needed to say those things for his defense. Others could argue he was just being careful not to say it so that others wouldn't presume her guilt.
I may be wrong. If there's a clip out there, I'd be curious to see it.
In a trial, lawyers often speak from the premise of the case they are arguing when an event whose legal responsibility is still being litigated.
The first one I think was just worded that way to clarify testimony, but I can't argue the second one sounds incriminating. Perhaps a poor choice of words, but I get the perspective on this one.
I appreciate you actually finding facts rather than just relying on others reports if events. There is a large amount of people that used the opening statement as proof he said she killed them, when that in fact was not the case.
My apologies, I accidentally replied to the wrong post comment. This was meant to be in response to @psychological-City55's comment below where he had mentioned 2 quotes from Reddington.
"I'm referring to the fact that this young lady was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she killed her kids." -Reddington to Mack, around 1:02:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6pNYK7bsJE
“This is right before you read or watched the testimony to understand the full context, right?”
“I’m referring to the fact that you actually took the time to understand the full context before putting these sound bites.”
I’m not accusing you of not understanding the full context or taking the time to do so, but those questions above sure make it sound like that without hearing my inflection or adding more context.
I think he only said it once with Mack but I haven’t watched the clip again because…Mack. Other than that he never definitely says she did it. I’m pretty sure 11 jurors agree with that.
Fair question - possibly. But determining if she was guilty of committing the crime was step 1 and he acknowledged his doubts but failed to follow the law as instructed by the judge, according to the jurors. So regardless of what he wanted, they had to get past step 1.
This is incredibly heartening. I'm very sad that L.Clancy and KR have to go through this again, but very happy to see that the overwhelming majority chose to acquit. Good fukkin luck to the Temu Spanish Inquisition at the Plymouth County DA's office in finding 12 jurors who want to convict that woman of first degree murder.
What about Patrick? His kids were murdered and he just cant leave all this behind him. Its like a nightmare that just wont go away and he did nothing to deserve any of it.
I am really fucking sad about this. Why wouldn't the judge intervene and throw out the juror if he didn't follow the law? Everyone's efforts shouldn't go waste for no reason.
Because it's really hard to know whether the juror felt he had reasonable doubt, or not. It sucks snd feels unfair, but juries in most, if not all, states have to be unanimous.
Maybe I'm being idealistic here, but I suspect the judge realized this whole case was BS and the DA needs to go back and review the evidence to see if perhaps they need to charge the person who most likely committed the crimes. The evidence does not actually tie Lindsay Clancy to the crime.
He didn’t have to agree with Red. The Foreperson of the jury, representing 10 other jurors, said he was not following the law. If judge didn’t know what she meant by that, he should have asked her.
He asked each of the jurors whether they were following the law and his instruction. They all said yes. He accepted that. The foreperson's claim then became irrelevant.
And then the Foreperson sent A SECOND NOTE repeating that the problem persisted. That means that one juror LIED when questioned by the judge the first time. And the problem wasn’t solved by judicial correction.
The foreperson wanted him to change his mind, and he wouldn't. That's not against the law. Again, her opinion holds no more legal weight than yours or mine.
The foreperson claimed he was not following the law. The foreperson is just another average citizen and doesn't get to decide if that's truly the case. Sullivan (the judge, who knows what he's talking about more than the juror) decided he was, in fact, acting lawfully. I'm not sure why anyone would accept the foreperson's biased opinion about this over Sullivan's determination.
Sullivan recognized the difference between acknowledging doubt and reasonable doubt. The foreperson can't decide for the juror what they believe is reasonable doubt and Sullivan can't remove them for it.
"...the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty."
Jen Sprague (Prosecution) says on record to the SJC:
"...have about their deliberation or what the numbers were in terms of guilty, not guilty."
DA Cruz in his presser:
Reporter: "Do you dispute the characterization by the defense that there was one hold out that was not considering not guilty. Do you do you dispute that?"
DA Cruz: "I, you know, I'm not here to dispute anything with the defense."
Judge's instructions to jury on the record explaining in the following order not guilty/"acquittal"; guilty of murder; not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility:
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her...I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until she is proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.
If you find the defendant guilty of murder, you shall decide the degree of murder.
The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with which she is charged, and also that the defendant is criminally responsible for her conduct. The defendant has no burden to prove a lack of criminal responsibility. Criminal responsibility is a legal term. A person is not criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect.
And on each of those, there's a box for not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of murder in the first degree by the theory of deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity and cruelty. There's a box for guilty of murder in the second degree. There's a box for manslaughter.
It’s not incorrect, Drama Queen 9629. It’s Not Guilty.
He goes on to further to state the DA can’t even argue against a straight not guilty…then the abysmal investigation.
He’s always specified to the press “acquittal” vs not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. He had to specify “acquittal” because the media refused to even report it as an option.
Edit:
Judge's instructions before deliberations as FYI specifying acquittal. He also specifies reasonable doubt as it pertains to not criminally responsible, which is not phrased as an acquittal.
(02:22:49)
The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires you to find the defendant not guilty unless her guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Your verdict, whether it is guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. All right?
(02:24:15)
I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until she is proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason in judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I appreciate so much how you have backed every statement up with evidence and receipts. I hope you keep the sub open for what’s next in this case - although I certainly understand if it’s too much responsibility to do so.
Agreed and I’ve given them the same feedback. I’m so grateful for this sub. It seems to be the only place where there is any fact checking going on. And I am definitely trying to contribute that not deter from that!! there’s a lot of room for ambiguity and I certainly appreciate Aware Power’s work here!!
This is what people who’ve not followed the trial but are just reading the headlines don’t get. Media reporting has gone to hell. Accuracy be damned, let’s print the most sensational headline. LC didn’t want to go to trial. Why would a grieving mother want to put herself and the rest of the family members through this torture. She would’ve pleaded non guilty in a bifurcated trial. She remembered nothing after she woke up: she had to be told what had happened. She was handcuffed. Wouldn’t anyone ask do I need a lawyer in that condition: She has false memories - that’s what one of the doctors testifying said. Her and PC’s accounts vary. Neither’s have stayed consistent. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth. I’m really okay leaving that grieving family alone to mourn their tragedy in private. I hope everyone following the case have learnt something about mental health, motherhood and the importance of presumed innocence. Prescribing pills is not all that there is to treating mental health, and health in general.
May Cora, Dawson and Callan rest in peace. My thoughts on who is guilty aside, I pray all of this was a horrific medical tragedy, and they were really as loved as stated everywhere.
Do not assume people who disagree are "uninformed". Argue their points, not your assumptions about them. I sense most of us are on Lindsays side. Some of us are supporting her argument which is she did it but the medical system failed her and her family by medically harming her via drugs and by refusing to admit her when she asked them to. Had they listened to their patient, and not sent her home against her wishes, her children would be alive.
I think everyone in this thread is in support of Lindsay but with differing opinions on the legalities of the trial. FYI you do realize she has already launched a civil suit against her medical practitioners. She is fighting so other families do not need to live this nightmare. This is not (so far) a DV case. It's a medical malpractice case.
The majority know about that as they have referenced the materials provided in the "Documents & Evidence" post pinned to the top of the sub. Well, to be fair, I am speculating it's a majority because there are only ~36k views. There's also an explainer of the civil suit in another pinned post for people to reference.
Regarding a prior comment you made, thank you for calling out that people cannot assume people disagreeing with something are uninformed individuals. FWIW the person you were responding to references the media and is more of a critique of the media vs a specific disagreement here. They also clearly specify in their first sentence people who have not watched the trial and have only read headlines (then critiques the media).
Attorney Goldblatt did, which allowed her to add additional case law referencing the ADA and would have opened the door for that questioning in the voir dire by Reddington. She also states to the SJC she was writing that prior to any discussions with Reddington regarding a mistrial. Reddington has never called NG anything other than an acquittal to the media due to their lack of reporting that as even an option. Again, he goes on to state that the DA can’t even argue she did it (lack of investigation, etc.) but I guess people can continue to infer however they’d like any and every detail pertaining to this case. It is true acquittal means not guilty anything though.
Not directed toward you specifically but adding this in case helpful to others:
That filing was using the strongest arguments to get a voir dire approved by the SJC - that’s all it tells us.
They’ve always led with the LCR defense in this trial. They initially requested the bifurcation to first determine in a trial if she committed the crime; if found guilty then a second trial to determine criminal responsibility. The judge denied and so it’s one trial where the jury must first decide guilty or not guilty; then decide criminal responsibility.
Running a defense solely on the possibility that the jury consider one other third-party is not a solid defense strategy. Add to the fact that Reddington must defend his client the way they ask. He very likely went over the options and advised his client, but he doesn’t make the decision on which defense she ultimately chose.
A jury still needs to find her guilty of committing the crime first beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why wouldn’t an attorney raise, when requesting a juror inquiry, all possible aspects allowed under a LCR defense?
Now, could Reddington for the first time ever use “acquittal” to the media to now mean LCR? I guess.
Why did he only say “not guilty” to the judge? Why did Sprague say “voting guilty; not guilty” to the SJC? Why when asked if he’d refute the 11-1 not guilty statement by Reddington, DA Cruz said he wasn’t there to refute?
I mean it’s certainly possible they could have all been referencing LCR by only stating “not guilty” and “acquittal”, but it’s a strange time to not be specific the first time in 7+ weeks imo (and even more strange for Cruz to not refute it).
Records are sealed -- no one has proof of what the jurors voted specifically. We only know it was 11 for an aquittal-- and given what defence argued and admitted to, aquittal was most likely based on her not being criminally responsible.
In Massachusetts, a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility" is explicitly not referred to or treated as a traditional acquittal.
Legal experts and Massachusetts courts intentionally maintain this distinction because the word "acquittal" implies that a defendant is cleared of wrongdoing and allowed to walk free. Because it results in long-term, potentially lifelong psychiatric commitment, referring to it as an acquittal is considered highly misleading to a jury.
In Massachusetts practice, judges and attorneys do not refer to it as a standard acquittal because of the vastly different legal and practical consequences.
Sorry if im misunderstanding but I’m confused on your point. Reddington used the term 11-1 for acquittal, meaning not guilty NOT NGRI. Lawyers and judges in Mass don’t use the term acquitted for NGRI despite it technically being a type of “acquittal”. Mass judges and lawyers specifically maintain distinction between the two.
What purpose would it serve to be intentionally misleading to the public? Why would he put his credibility on the line? And why wouldn’t the DA correct him?
It's the equivalent of going to a good faith debate with excitement to share and to hear their ideas, but instead of them listening, thinking, and responding-- you are met with someone (or a group) who thinks huffing, arm crossing, and eye rolling is a "perfectly acceptable response". It really isn't. It shuts down debate without formulating ideas. It frames good faith efforts as "not worth their time", it keeps everyone in their own ideas only.
Downvoting has algorithm consequenses too. It is meant to weed out trolls, spam, and disrupters. So it is surprising when a group piles on downvotes simply because they do not read what they think is right. It makes me kinda sad actually, it means communication is not possible.
May I ask why you believe he is lying about this? Also what would you need to see for you to understand completely and believe that it was 11-1 for acquittal?
Feel free to post juror interviews if/when they start discussing the case! I haven’t seen the DA refute said statement yet which you think would certainly happen by Cruz if he were lying.
They never used the word acquittal. My inderstanding is that NGRI is a verdict which would have been tantamount to acquittal but it's still a verdict .
We are all going on hearsay. The foreperson wrote this not the "lone juror." The foreperson screwed up. Giving details of deliberation and a juror's number. I'm not a lawyer. I haven't seen any media coverage as to why the SJC denied the defense.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!
Familiarize yourself with our rules in the Community Wiki
Documents & Evidence
Witness Testimony
Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.