this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
15 points (94.1% liked)

Wild Feed

641 readers
61 users here now

A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.

Tag if needed:

[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.

[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.

[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.

[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.

[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.

[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.

*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.

*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.

Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.

All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.

Sources posted here include:

https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/

https://www.apa.org/

apnews.com/

https://arstechnica.com/

https://www.theatlantic.com/

https://www.bbc.com/

https://www.earth.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/

https://lithub.com/

https://www.mentalfloss.com/

https://www.newscientist.com/

http://psychologytoday.com/

https://www.thequint.com/

https://www.reuters.com/

https://www.rfi.fr/en/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/

https://time.com/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us

Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.

Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

A woman who was juror No. 5 spoke to WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex Tuesday, though she asked to remain anonymous.

"At the end of the day, there was so much doubt," the woman said. "The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I haven't followed the case that closely, but that statement seems concerning. I was under the impression this was using an affirmative defense. The prosecution didn't have to prove anything other than she wasn't crazy in that exact moment. This stament makes me think the jury instructions were absurdly terrible, or this juror straight up ignored them.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even her own defense admitted she did it.

Maybe the doubt was she did it under psychosis? That's a charitable interpretation of the juror's statement.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe the doubt was she did it under psychosis? That’s a charitable interpretation of the juror’s statement.

That's what I thought, too. TBH, I had to read that article 3 or 4 times before I could make any sense out of it. With a 11-1 hung jury, I just assumed that 11 people thought she was guilty and 1 thought she was innocent. Turns out, it's the opposite! Public opinion had already convicted her, but her defense must've had a great case.

The juror who spoke to WBZ-TV said at first, she believed Clancy should be found guilty and was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

"And maybe I still believe that in a certain way. I think that this is a woman who was not mentally healthy. She was someone who was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis," the juror said. "I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out."

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Turns out, it’s the opposite! Public opinion had already convicted her, but her defense must’ve had a great case.

I've honestly only seen conservative circles completely condemning her. Almost all of the women I've seen talking about this case understood what postpartum psychosis really means.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’ve been following the case on 9gag - (If you’re not familiar with the site I would NOT recommend a visit) which has been both depressing and eye opening. It’s all pitchforks, gallows and the stake, “WaHMeN tOo EmoTiONaL”… but none of them really seem to understand what the jury were asked.

But, in 9gaggers defence: if you never leave your basement, are terminally online, hyper misogynistic, obsessed with being of White / European descent, only having online acquaintances and the only FeMaLe you ever see is mommy when she drops off your chicken tendies you’d probably join the groupthink too.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm kind of impressed they follow the news.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 hours ago

similar to above I folllwed it in Kiwifarms

know thine enemy