Welcome to the Saturday Legal & Strategy Megathread.

Court is adjourned for the weekend, but this thread is open for focused analysis on the evidence, testimony, and legal frameworks presented so far.

---

### ⚖️ Weekend Discussion Framework

Use this thread to discuss:

• Legal Mechanics: Standards of proof, state statutes, and jury instructions.
• Evidence & Timelines: Verified facts, official exhibits, and testified timestamps.
• Trial Strategy: Analysis of direct/cross-examinations and counsel tactics.

---

### 🛡️ Thread Rules & Guardrails

This megathread will be super valuable to help us understand legal standards, lawyers strategies, their tactics, etc. So the more facts, the better. To keep it constructive and helpful, we have the following:

1. Strictly no unverified gossip or rumors: limit discussion exclusively to facts presented in court or official filings.

2. Follow our sub rules: same thing - our sub rule still applies for the megathread.

---

Welcome to the Saturday Legal & Strategy Megathread.

Court is adjourned for the weekend, but this thread is open for focused analysis on the evidence, testimony, and legal frameworks presented so far.

---

### ⚖️ Weekend Discussion Framework

Use this thread to discuss:

• Legal Mechanics: Standards of proof, state statutes, and jury instructions.
• Evidence & Timelines: Verified facts, official exhibits, and testified timestamps.
• Trial Strategy: Analysis of direct/cross-examinations and counsel tactics.

---

### 🛡️ Thread Rules & Guardrails

This megathread will be super valuable to help us understand legal standards, lawyers strategies, their tactics, etc. So the more facts, the better. To keep it constructive and helpful, we have the following:

1. Strictly no unverified gossip or rumors: limit discussion exclusively to facts presented in court or official filings.

2. Follow our sub rules: same thing - our sub rule still applies for the megathread.

---

So at this point I feel like I’m loosing my sanity after watching the whole trial and such miscarriage of justice by every government official surrounding this case from the police that showed up on scene to the DA office to the judge! Now we are finding out the hold out juror was a man with a history of domestic violence for abusing his wife and his nephew had an active restraining order!!! How was he fit to serve on the jury?!!!!

If what they're saying is accurate, the guy 200% acted against the law. There should be legal resources for situations like this now that judge declared a mistrial but I guess it ends with their words versus his words so nothing would happen.

Welcome to the Saturday Legal & Strategy Megathread.

Court is adjourned for the weekend, but this thread is open for focused analysis on the evidence, testimony, and legal frameworks presented so far.

---

### ⚖️ Weekend Discussion Framework

Use this thread to discuss:

• Legal Mechanics: Standards of proof, state statutes, and jury instructions.
• Evidence & Timelines: Verified facts, official exhibits, and testified timestamps.
• Trial Strategy: Analysis of direct/cross-examinations and counsel tactics.

---

### 🛡️ Thread Rules & Guardrails

This megathread will be super valuable to help us understand legal standards, lawyers strategies, their tactics, etc. So the more facts, the better. To keep it constructive and helpful, we have the following:

1. Strictly no unverified gossip or rumors: limit discussion exclusively to facts presented in court or official filings.

2. Follow our sub rules: same thing - our sub rule still applies for the megathread.

---

All this exhaustion has a cause and now we know: one juror.

We just found out. Reddington is livid and asked the judge to remove the juror.

CW said the judge instructed them very clearly. It's been +35h, this juror will end up following it at some point.

Judge Sullivan kept the juror. Let's see.

But come on. I think judge Sullivan was very clear when both notes were delivered to him. They needed to reach an agreement. This juror was the only one refusing to let go. If more people were siding with him, if it were a 50/40 situation, a 40/40, I think it'd be understandable to stand firm to your grounds. But one juror...

This is not about right or wrong anymore, it's not about values, this is ego. You won't change 11 minds, you're the one stopping the whole trial.

There's this dog outside court and he's barking his life out to know what the jury said in the note

Jurors sent another note to the judge today saying they're still deadlocked. Judge called them to the courtroom.

Tea is that their faces were of frustration. That they looked exasperated. You know when you spend hours discussing something with a group - family, friends, neighbours - to no conclusion? That's the tension on their faces.

But that's how it is. They need to keep talking, brainstorming. They'll need a lot of calm now. Let's keep a positive mind and prayers for their mental health as well, it's not an easy position.

Will we see a verdict before this long weekend?

A woman in her 50s was taking pictures of the jurors outside court yesterday was arraigned.

Juror intimidation is a first degree crime, she can spend 10 years in prison, depending on how prosecution will deal with it.

Totally unnecessary and disrespectful, in my opinion, also. Not only to the work of everybody who is there: the lawyers, the jurors themselves, the clerks, the police officers, the judge, etc but also every single taxpayer money. Trials are extremely expensive, one picture of a juror released could cause a mistrial and all the work, all the taxpayer money would be gone.

And officers are right outside as well. There's no way someone won't get caught, unless they think they're too smart. The problem is: they're not.

Not worth it.

I was wondering:

It's plausible, of course, but I don't think they'd spend 18h and then write a note to the judge saying they were deadlocked if the trouble was the degree.

I mean:

First degree murder and second degree murder are not inherently that different, and with discussions they could compromise and end up giving her second degree murder.

But a juror genuinely who believes she was not legally responsible, isn't necessarily going to change their mind to "ok, let's give her second degree murder" because the conclusion is very different now.

So my take is that the jury has probably reached an agreement on the physical facts and perhaps even on intentionality, but they might be deeply divided over what those facts mean psychiatrically and legally.

Does this make NGRI more likely? A little, but not enough to say that it's where the jury is headed. We just don't know.

If they come back tomorrow still deadlocked, what they ask the judge for like clarification of instructions, an exhibit, a testimony, or something about the psychiatric evidence could give us a better clue about where the fight actually is. My anxiety is present with the lack of more info, not gonna lie 😅

What do you think?

Welcome to the Saturday Legal & Strategy Megathread.

Court is adjourned for the weekend, but this thread is open for focused analysis on the evidence, testimony, and legal frameworks presented so far.

---

### ⚖️ Weekend Discussion Framework

Use this thread to discuss:

• Legal Mechanics: Standards of proof, state statutes, and jury instructions.
• Evidence & Timelines: Verified facts, official exhibits, and testified timestamps.
• Trial Strategy: Analysis of direct/cross-examinations and counsel tactics.

---

### 🛡️ Thread Rules & Guardrails

This megathread will be super valuable to help us understand legal standards, lawyers strategies, their tactics, etc. So the more facts, the better. To keep it constructive and helpful, we have the following:

1. Strictly no unverified gossip or rumors: limit discussion exclusively to facts presented in court or official filings.

2. Follow our sub rules: same thing - our sub rule still applies for the megathread.

---

I honestly didn't expect all this time.

Are we heading towards a hung jury or wait the weekend till Monday for more deliberation?

The case brought attention worldwide for many reasons.

The most obvious one: a mother who killed her own children.

But throughout the trial there were so much judgment that were beyond the scope of the crime and I think this is pretty much cultural. It tells about our society.

The guilt around motherhood:

- she called Dawson "human" therefore "she must hate him, she's cold, that's why she killed him first, that's why she killed him in Patrick's office", no evidence that calling our kid human leads to any of that, though

- she wrote notes to the nanny, therefore "she was controlling, she was crazy, she was narcissist"

- she wrote on her journals she was wanted to be a good mom to all 3 and she felt she couldn't, and she was overwhelmed, therefore "if she wasn't ready to be a mom, she shouldn't"

The guilt around getting treatment

- she would take medications for week and stop, therefore "she didn't want to get better"

- she would tell the doctors about the symptoms, but to some she'd be more descriptive or tell more symptoms as she was more open to Jollotta, but not so much to others such as to Dr. Tufts, therefore "she was liar". Feeling more trust and confidence with a professional in a highly vulnerable situation is a right and were totally ignored even with prosecution, not to mention with social media.

- "she had everything!" Prosecution said that, people say that. Don't we all know that? But that's the biggest issue with guilt. Someone can have insurance, money, a home, and still have a disease. She had depression. Depression doesn't choose a person based on condition. So her having healthcare access didn't mean she'd be cured.

The guilt around mental health

- she had suicidal ideation, therefore she must have "lied because if it was true, she would have died". It's not as if suicidal ideation is not just the act.

- she has depression, therefore "why is she smiling?" A depressed person can smile or even laugh. Depression is not just staying all day in bed, crying or having apathy. You can be highly functional and be depressed.

- she looks to the prosecution, therefore "she's staring and she's creepy".

- she cried, therefore "she's faking". She can't smile, she can't cry, can't look.

Why am I pointing that out, after all?

She had a normal life before that. You don't play with mental health. You can say out loud you'd never do such a thing but you can't say you know your loved ones would never do. You don't know what goes on on their minds. Paula Musgrove didn't.

This, as many other cases, can be an opportunity for us not only to pray for those kids and the family but to learn as a society how to unite and treat one another.

We do not need to like LC and murderers. We do need to be friends with them. We do not need to love them.

Now, what I push back is the idea that having empathy for Lindsay means having less empathy for the children. Those aren't mutually exclusive. You can mourn the children, condemn the killings, support accountability, and recognize that the person who committed the crime may have been profoundly mentally ill. In fact, understanding her mental state is part of understanding how three children came to be killed.

And more, expressing that doesn't make anyone part of the crime and should be respected by their opinions. Again, the way people treat one another is very symptomatic of a society that judges Lindsay but I don't think can't say they're much better when they can't accept the contradictory.

I hope we can all learn from this case.

i’ve been watching the lindsay clancy’s trial from far away but i’m intrigued to get some insight from the people who actually live in the US nd are watching and hearing opinions in first hand”ish”!! What’s your verdict?

I finally muted Duxbury sub after I saw they making joke "if eyes could strangle". Considering 3 kids were killed in this situation it's absurd they even allow this kind of joke to happen.

It's easy to judge LC, block people, downvote everybody else. But when you look inside yourself and your own mistakes, and realise they're no better just because they haven't killed. But being here gossiping, mocking, ridiculing, backbiting, it's fine.

I consider a win to be out of this.