Everyone’s a Cunt: The Lindsay Clancy Jury

Roni Carlson, foreperson of the Lindsay Clancy jury, has given us a rather interesting insight into what happened in that jury room.

And by interesting, we mean what the actual fuck?

Carlson said: 

“We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she’s admitting that.”

Righto. Except Lindsay Clancy pleaded not guilty.

So, just to recap the basics:

The prosecution had a case to prove.

The jury had to decide whether the prosecution had proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the judge specifically instructed them that the Commonwealth carried that burden.

Yet according to the foreperson:

“We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children.”

NEXT.

Which is an interesting way to approach a murder trial. It's a bit like being asked: “Did you eat the last Tim Tam?”

and replying: “Obviously. Now let's discuss whether I had a good reason.”

Mate. That's not how questions work.

Now, to be fair, the defence wasn't arguing that somebody else had killed the children.

But that's precisely why Carlson's wording is so fucking interesting. Because there's a difference between:

“Nobody disputed that she killed them.”

and:

“We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children.”

One describes something the defence wasn't contesting.

The other describes what the jury says it wasn't bothering to determine.

And then Carlson explained what they were trying to work out:

“We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time?”

Fair enough. That's the question at the heart of the criminal responsibility issue.

Except then came this beauty:

“Everything proved that she loved her children so she had to have snapped.”

Ah. Because apparently we're now diagnosing psychiatric disorders using the Mother's Day test.

She loved her kids. Therefore she snapped. Case closed. Someone get the DSM and a bunch of macaroni necklaces.

Loving your children proves you love your children. It doesn't, on its own, prove psychosis. It doesn't prove you lacked criminal responsibility. And it certainly isn't a substitute for the legal test the jury was instructed to apply.

Which brings us to a character we know very well at Everyone's a Cunt.

The Didn't-Read-The-Question Cunt

We've all met one. They don't necessarily get the wrong answer.

They just answer a completely different fucking question.

You ask: “Did you send the email?” They tell you why they were annoyed with Dave.

You ask: “Why are you late?” They tell you about the traffic three suburbs away.

Nobody asked any of that.

They've already decided what the conversation is about. And off they fucking go.

And that's one hell of a cunt of a problem.

Common career: Jury foreperson.

Survival strategy: Decide the answer before reading the question.

Special skill: Turning “prove it” into “obviously”.

Cuntability rating: Jury still out.

Although apparently, according to the foreperson, one question wasn't even up for discussion.

And that's the bit worth thinking about.

Because in a murder trial, you don't get to choose which bits of the question you feel like answering.

You get the whole fucking question.

Then you work out whether the evidence actually answers it.

Apparently, that's harder than it sounds.

#EveryonesACunt #LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #TrueCrime #JuryDuty #JuryDeliberations #CriminalJustice #JusticeSystem #TrialByJury #BeyondAReasonableDoubt #LegalAnalysis #DidntReadTheQuestion #JuryForeperson