Forthenameless

As gut-wrenching as the first week of the horrific Clancy trial was, legally speaking, the trial hasn't really started. These cases boil down to a "battle of experts," which is what will determine Clancy's fate. If the defense expert is credible, persuasive and highly respected (and hopefully for Clancy's sake, her expert has testified previously for prosecutors), then this becomes a hell of a task for the prosecution and torture for the jury. Massachusetts is a unique place (duh): the mental disease or defect defense is NOT an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is a very big deal. Unlike most jurisdictions, the DA has to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to Clancy establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. That critical nuance, in the hands of a skilled advocate capable of effectively weaving in the key facts with the psychiatric science, can lead to an NGRI result. But even if that happens, it's tantamount to a Pyrrhic victory: decades in a state hospital. Nobody is winning this one.

A person who is a rabid racist, mysoginist, an anti-Semite, one who endorses sexual assault, homophobe (and anything else) is a terrible and dangerous person. The same person, armed with a firearm, badge, arrest powers, all other advantages and benefits of the state, and endorsed by law enforcement and its unlimited resources, is also a terrible person, but 1000x more dangerous than a private citizen. If you cannot appreciate this obvious fact and the harmful impact that such a police officer has on the credibility and viability of investigations and prosecutions, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not a credible analyst.