Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

Has anyone else been following the lindsay clancy trial? What is everyone thinkin? I dont think she done it

Most family shared devices have their own usernames and passwords.

Take WhatsApp for example. There's a huge amount of privacy and conversely sharing going on, though I personally have disabled the ability to cut and paste and share to another group. As have all I know.

There was a recent family request. Contacted the person separately and had a chat. They were happy to join. This separate group has nothing to do with me. Nor would I want to pry.

Yes and also wasn’t this on his work laptop? She had her own smart phone so why would she log into his work laptop to search for things when she’d have her phone to hand? 🤷‍♀️🤔

People absolutely are treating this case as a “who done it” go and look at the posts. People saying “he did it” “She’s innocent” with associated speculation as to how the timeline doesn’t add up; how he must have done x and y and associated speculation, let’s not pretend that people aren’t looking at this case through the lense of the internet sleuth.

Do people really think that the police just take someone’s word and go “oh, he said she did it, so no investigation needed”? And then some mumsnetter comes along and says “oh, TikTok said he’s a horrible person so obviously he did it cause he’s a man and women don’t kill their children.” And bang, case solved after it’s taken three years to come to trial?

It’s a fact that she killed the children. Her having killed them is not disputed. What is being disputed is whether she was of sound mind when she did it.

‘Can you treat a sociopath?’ Yikes

This is a criminal case.

The prosecution alleges that it was murder with intent and that Lindsay Clancy was of sound mind when she did it. The prosecution has to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has 168 witnesses to shore up the evidence.

The defence categorically states as a defence that Lindsay Clancy did do it but was insane at the time.

The defence team have to indicate, as a defence, that there's evidence that her mental state was diseased and defected at the time of the killings.

Remember this currently is the prosecution case.

Are you not also a 'mumsnetter' @NeverLookInTheMirror

For gods sake, would you stop banging on about TikTok, acting like anyone that poses questions is so thick they’re depending on social media talking heads for their information. Like there aren’t intelligent women on this thread, and many other areas of life, asking very valid questions from their own review of verifiable evidence.

It’s difficult not to think that way when you have posters coming on telling you the case is about whether she is guilty or not guilty of the killing the children. Completely misunderstanding the whole trial. And then quoting evidence that is directly contradicting evidence that has been presented at trial. You can tell the posters who have been following the evidence presented from those that have not.

The prosecution case so far has been truly woeful hasn’t it? Nearly every witness they’ve called, and their line of questioning, has been more beneficial for the defence at this point. And the defence hasn’t even begun.

They’re not misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is LC has pleaded not guilty to the murder of her children. End of. And the jury can find her guilty, not guilty by insanity, or completely acquit and find her not guilty.

you obviously haven’t read the posts and don’t understand the trial.

What don’t I understand?

I would agree with this.

Just a point of order, because you'll get it in the neck from persistently quoting posters to make you look bad, the defence plea is murder by insanity.

The prosecution says absolutely clear cut that Lindsay Clancy was of sound mind when she killed her children. And as you know they have to prove that to the jury beyond all reasonable doubt.

So far, I agree with you. The prosecution is doing badly.

No, she has pleaded not guilty to all three murder charges. Her defence at trial is that she is not criminally responsible.

The fact that she simply pleaded not guilty means there is still an acquittal on the table. And initially, her lawyer actually asked for this trial to be split in two phases. He wanted the first phase to establish whether she committed the killings and the second to address criminal responsibility. The judge rejected that request

Her plea is murder by insanity. Which technically speaking means she is not criminally responsible.

Actually you are right 👍

Her defense is not guilty of criminal murder because of insanity.

I’m sorry but you’re incorrect. Her plea was not guilty. And in Massachusetts they don’t use the ‘by insanity’ terminology, it’s a test of criminal responsibility or lack thereof.

I’ve taken this directly from a court document:

Lindsay Clancy, the defendant in case No. 2383CR00199, is requesting the Plymouth Superior Court to reconsider the denial of her motion for bifurcated trial. She is willing to stipulate her involvement in the deaths of three children, arguing that the only issue for trial should be her state of mind regarding criminal responsibility. Clancy's attorney contends that requiring a full trial on culpability is unnecessary given the stipulation agreement.

Yes, the stipulation agreement came about 6 days into the trial, having had the request for a 2 phase trial denied. She has agreed to certain information that can now be taken as fact, including that she was involved in the murder of her children. But as I said, her plea remains Not Guilty, and the jury can still choose to acquit altogether, find her not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility, or guilty. And if found guilty there could be first or second degree considerations.

Again, what am I not understanding?

Thank you for the clarification.

I still stand by my first post on this thread.

This should never have gone to a criminal court and trial by jury.

And I have never said she can’t be found not guilty.

My grievance was with a poster who commented that the trial was about whether she committed the murders or not. I don’t know how many times I can explain this.

But the jury have the (very very unlikely) option of finding her not guilty of the murders? The prosecution need to meet the burden of proof that she did in fact commit the murders.

Either they are going to find her to have been criminally insane and give a not guilty verdict or find her to have been of sound mind and decide guilty. Again, it rests on whether she was criminally insane, or not.

I think finding her not guilty of the murders is not even worth debating since she’s confessed to it.