Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

Has anyone else been following the lindsay clancy trial? What is everyone thinkin? I dont think she done it

If the holdout is not applying the law as instructed they can be removed.

So if the holdout is saying "I think there's doubt here, I can't be sure but on balance I think she might possibly be guilty and therefore I will only accept a guilty verdict." they can be removed. That's called "Refusal to deliberate". So given all the attention to the deliberation I find highly unlikely that's what's happening or they'd have beem removed yesterday. Seems more likely the other Jurors think the holdout's conclusion is so wildly inconsistent with the evidence that the holdout must be failing to apply the correct burden of proof. That's just the jury disagreeing, which is allowed.

I actually quite like that the US televises trials. Doing so adds a level of transparency and awareness that keeps the government and police accountable in some ways. It also gives the general public the ability to see what the legal process looks like. I can also understand how it can be problematic. In some cases, huge coverage and massive public interest can lead to jury interference/bias, wild speculation, and all sorts of legal issues. The restrictions in the UK prevent much of this.

I can think of many cases that would have been even more massively discussed had the trials been televised (Soham, Baby P, Lucy Letby, Southport, Sara Sharif, Joanna Dennehy, Beverley Allitt, etc.).

Really, isn't it (the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) all quite subjective and a matter of opinion? The fact that hung juries occur in the first place tells me that it is. The fact that the same case can be tried twice with the same evidence presented and two different juries can come to vastly different conclusions/verdicts tells me that it is. The prosecution argues the case and is tasked with proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, but different people are going to come to different conclusions on whether they have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't know the exact details of what's being said amongst the jury, but it's not enough to say that a juror isn't following the law because they have reached a different conclusion than the majority.

Why isn't the judge removing them??

Really, isn't it (the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) all quite subjective and a matter of opinion?

That's my take. It's totally subjective and the stuff the judge has to read out seemed wrong to me. The test isn't "certainty" if it was nobody would ever be convicted of anything and instead of something wooly like "beyond reasonable doubt" they could just say "certain".

It doesn’t sound like that at all. Twice previously the jury has come back to say they cannot reach a unanimous decision now they’ve come back and stated one juror is not following instructions. It certainly sounds like that one juror has said something to make the rest of the jury think they’ve made a non evidence based decision. That’s why the judge specifically reminded them of reasonable doubt. It sounds very much like the holdout is saying Idgaf about the burden of proof

I think that at least some, if not all, of the jurors have talked about the trial with close family members or searched for it online. (Do you really think 'John' is going to refuse to talk about the trial with his wife if she asks about it in the privacy of their home after he comes home from a long day at court? Do you really think 'Jennifer' is going to resist the urge to have a quick google out of curiosity after she's seen all of the cameras and media attention in the courtroom? Do you really think they'd admit to having done so?) I do not put that much confidence and trust in all 12 random people to be truthful and have integrity + self-control. It's human nature to seek out additional information. It's a bit naive to think otherwise. They should have been sequestered!

It sounds very much like the holdout is saying Idgaf about the burden of proof

If so that's "Refusal to deliberate" and they can be removed.

For the two reasons I've stated that seems unlikely.

So what you’ve described is essentially a state of psychosis. When various factors come together at a point to affect reasoning and personality and lead to a decision others would not come to and one which you would not reach at a better place in life.

Refusal to deliberate is not the same as not following the judge’s instructions on the law. You can deliberate all you like but if it veers towards ‘this is what I think’ rather than ‘the evidence shows’ especially at this point in the trial and deliberations then the juror should be removed. They have to follow the instructions, the whole point of any jury is to do that and show reasonable doubt or not based on the evidence they have heard and seen.

No. That's not psychosis, and doesn't pass the M’Naghten test.

"Affected reasoning" isn't enough.

If reasoning is affected in such a way that a person is not capable of understanding what they’re doing at the time the are doing it then it does pass the test

Also even if LC knew what she was doing, ie that she knew she was killing the children, she would have to know it was wrong. This is also part of m’naughton.

In Reddingtons interview after all this happened he said that the one juror had ‘reasonable doubt’ but wasn’t willing to use that in their verdict.

I'm convinced that she understood what she was doing AND understood that what she was doing was wrong and unlawful. There's a reason that she didn't do any of this in front of Patrick or with him in the house, and I can't be convinced that it's because she heard a voice directing her to do so after he had already left the house. I don't think she was in some sort of trance or delusional state.

Refusal to deliberate is not the same as not following the judge’s instructions on the law.

They are obliged to follow the Judge's instructions and can be removed if they don't. It's called "The Thomas Rule", and it will specifically applie if the "holdout is saying Idgaf about the burden of proof".

Yes, but that's not what you said.

Yes it is

He said that, but it's his job to make the case that the juror should be kicked off becaise it helps his client. On the other hand the prosecution seemed quite happy with the Juror's performance.

The judge's response seemed the correct one to me.

There's been another similar case that just happened a few days ago.

https://www.facebook.com/AbbyBlabby1/videos/corie-walsh-told-police-she-dr0wned-her-child-more-info-on-the-case-out-of-frank/2331783977640547/

That's my take. Plus she answered the phone and seemed OK during the "episode" so she was capable of communicating in a lucid way whilst also concealing what she was doing. There were also rational texts going back an forth. The theory that she had a brief psychotic episode just long enough to kill the kids without being guilty feels bat shit to me. Far more likely she was a different kind of mentally ill.

I think if I was a juror I'd go with NGRI purely out of sympathy for a nightmare situation but I think there IS evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she fails the M’Naghten test. (So I'd be the one failing to follow instructions 'cos I'd go for NGRI despite thinking that she was clearly lucid enough to fail the M’Naghten test.)

No, I haven’t. I’ve described a bad decision. Being exhausted and stressed isn’t psychosis. We’ve all made decisions we might not have made in other circumstances, albeit far less awful decisions.

I don't believe she was suffering from psychosis when she killed her children. That is, she was legally sane and knew right from wrong.

I've had a very firm belief for many years that Juries should never be made up from members of the public. They should be paid professionals who can understand the law and its consequences, not pig shit ignorant folk who believe what they read on TikTok.

Neither do I. She said the command voice stopped after she’d killed the last child. So, now she was apparently free of the voice that compelled her to kill her children, why didn’t she phone 911 or Patrick or attempt to help her children?

I agree with all of that except I wouldn’t go with NGRI out of sympathy because I wouldn’t believe it was true. I might be persuaded to go with Manslaughter not Murder 1 but the pre-planning would make that stick in my gut.