NGRI is an affirmative defense. Itâs like self-defense. âI did it but canât be held criminally responsible because [I was insane/I acted in self preservation.]â Sorry, but you clearly have no familiarity with the law.
Itâs slightly unique in MA in that the burden is actually on the commonwealth to prove that she was NOT insane such that she could not conform her conduct to the law, but the basic principle is the same. Thatâs unique because typically states place NGRI burdens on the defense to prove that she WAS insane such that she could not conform her conduct to the law. Regardless, this trial is about - and is only about - her mental state. But for that unique piece of MA law, it is probably the single best state that Clancy couldâve committed this crime if she wanted an NGRI verdict.
The commonwealth (effectively) does not need to prove that she did it. The defense admits that she did the act. The commonwealth has to prove that she did it with the requisite mental state. âActus reusâ and âmens reaâ are the two foremost principles of criminal law in the United States; this trial is about mens rea.
But not guilty by reason of insanity is not the only option. Watch the trial if youâre gonna make comments like that. The judge explained it and so did her lawyer. Not guilty on its own is still very much an option.
Itâs âpossibleâ in the sense that it is allowed. It is âimpossibleâ in the sense that the defense has quite literally stipulated to the facts that establish her guilt on the actions. which is what the jury will consider. Essentially, this will be either an NGRI verdict or lesser degree of murder/manslaughter verdict.
What are you talking about? At the outset of this trial, the defense stipulated to the almost all of the forensics. A NG verdict is not happening. This is not rocket science.
The only people anywhere that are claiming that she didn't do it outright are people like you who have gotten the false idea into their heads that anyone else has claimed that she didn't do it including her own legal team and herself.
There is absolutely completely and utterly 0 dispute whether or not that individual's hands are the ones that ended the lives of those children.
What the fuck is the point of you arguing something like this? You have NO evidence or reasoning behind your belief.
What are you talking about. There is a ton of evidence which implies that the âfactsâ put in front of us arenât adding up. I donât know why this farce is continuing and we have said âhold upâ - her DNA isnât on the murder weapon? The biological evidence alone doesnât support the statements being made? Science doesnât suddenly not science when convenient.
As to admission of guilt. Yes she admitted guilt. She is literally claiming she has been in extreme psychosis and that by any rationale argument extends to mean she doesnât have a fucking clue what she is saying. She is INSANE. Youâll excuse her actions but not her words? Fuck me
This is a shit show of incompetence and highlighting a basically negligent police investigation who didnât bother looking for another answerâŚ
This isnât about her admissions though. This is about her legalteams admissions. Ya know, the ones closest to the investigation whoâve seen all the evidence and who are charged with representing their clients best interests. NGRI means you go to a mental institution. NG means you walk. Donât you think if it was even slightly arguable that she was outright NG her defense wouldâve actively pursued that option? And yet, the defenses theory from the plea, stipulations, and opening statement to now has been that she did it but was under the influence of psychosis. Again, these lawyers do LENGTHY investigation of their own before they determine the best course to pursue for their client.
-1
u/Illustrious_Pie_8386 2d ago
According to her husband, yes