I've seen a lot of opinions about this on Reddit, and none of them seem to be familiar with the law, which would help in this case. Whereas I think she is certainly guilty of the 3 counts of 1st degree murder, proving this in court can be difficult in some cases. The commonwealth has to not only prove premeditation, they have to also prove that Clancy was mentally competent during the crime. Massachusetts states that the burden of proof for an insanity defense is on the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time. The one juror who considered her guilty supposedly did not follow the law (which requires the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time). So now there will be an appeal for a retrial. Finding an unbiased jury might be impossible.
...they have to also prove that Clancy was mentally competent during the crime.
She planned it in advance. She sent her husband away. She took a call from whim while committing the murders and was competent enough to not sound like anything was wrong.
You don't get much clearer evidence of mental competence than that.
So, yes, he did follow the law. There is just a cohort of women who don't like it, because he couldn't be bullied, and refused to cater to the Feelings Brigade.
Also, she was never diagnosed with postpartum depression or psychosis, despite seeing more doctors than most people can afford.
Log in
One man refused to be bullied into ignoring his conscience and judgment. It's pathetic that it was only one, but one was enough.
I've seen a lot of opinions about this on Reddit, and none of them seem to be familiar with the law, which would help in this case. Whereas I think she is certainly guilty of the 3 counts of 1st degree murder, proving this in court can be difficult in some cases. The commonwealth has to not only prove premeditation, they have to also prove that Clancy was mentally competent during the crime. Massachusetts states that the burden of proof for an insanity defense is on the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time. The one juror who considered her guilty supposedly did not follow the law (which requires the prosecution to show evidence that Clancy was not experiencing psychosis at the time). So now there will be an appeal for a retrial. Finding an unbiased jury might be impossible.
She planned it in advance. She sent her husband away. She took a call from whim while committing the murders and was competent enough to not sound like anything was wrong.
You don't get much clearer evidence of mental competence than that.
So, yes, he did follow the law. There is just a cohort of women who don't like it, because he couldn't be bullied, and refused to cater to the Feelings Brigade.
Also, she was never diagnosed with postpartum depression or psychosis, despite seeing more doctors than most people can afford.
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror