this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
-2 points (48.8% liked)
Shitposting
137 readers
1336 users here now
Stopping all fediverse activities. Good bye.
Absolutely stupid indisriminate bans by mods on various instances make it clear to me lemmy and fediverse does not want content.
if I ever get back to fediverse It would be on my own instance as its clear to me nothing short of that is going to work.
Welcome to !shitposting@lemmy.today - a place for memes, shitposts, absurdity, cursed images, low-effort masterpieces, and whatever other internet garbage makes you laugh.
Post dumb shit. Upvote dumb shit. Don't take dumb shit too seriously.
Rules:
- follow instance rules
- reddit shitposting content expressly allowed in any quantities at any post speed. Please do not report users for posting too fast
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They did not have five, technically they had three, none of which were “completely not guilty” as she had already pled guilty and did not dispute that she had committed the acts.
They had guilty of murder, not guilty by reason of insanity, and involuntary manslaughter was added to try and help split the difference at the request of the defense. None of these would have resulted in her being free of consequences as you are implying.
Your characterization of “following the law” being assigned to the juror who you agree with reveals your bias here, and you also seem to be under the impression that the jury had the authority to ignore her guilty plea. You should reconsider the source of your information.
So, you're just wrong.... And loudly, which just makes it seem like you're purposely spreading misinformation. You can literally listen to the judge's instructions to the jury both at the beginning and end of the trial. He explicitly states that the state of Massachusetts is still required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact commit the crime she was accused of regardless of the insanity defence. There were 5 possible verdicts read to the jury.
Going for the NGRMI defense just means the state also have to prove she was in her right mind.
The jury is charged, under oath mind you, to carry out the law as stated in the instructions given by the judge. If they have any reasonable doubt, they are instructed to find the defendant not guilty. A single juror expressed in deliberations that he had reasonable doubt but still refused to follow his oath and find her not guilty; the implication here is that the juror knowingly lied under oath to the judge about being able to carry out his duty under the law and torpedoed the trial based on personal convictions despite acknowledging reasonable doubt.
We are on the same page here regarding the potential motivations of the final juror…
Is there any source you can find that isn’t the defense itself for the not guilty verdict of the 11 jurors? Not saying it isn’t true but the defense would have reason to potentially misrepresent the reality of their discussions for the benefit of their position. I’d be curious to find out more.