Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

It would be absolutely unprecedented if that was the verdict considering her defence have admitted that she committed the crime throughout the trial.

they didnt though. He had to be strategic because to do a NG by reason of insanity you have to admit it. BUT he made it quite clear in closing and the latter part of the trial that she doesnt remember it, and there was no police investigation. Kev said this in interview outside court. It was what he had to do. I dont know whether Lindsay still believes she did it, but Big Red certainly doesnt.

Why on earth would it be strategic to plead NGRI if there is all this supposed evidence to support a "not guilty" outcome?

Reddington has had years to prepare this case.

Who do you think killed the children?

The recent accusations against the investigation I'm sure are the direct result of Reddington getting wind of the tiktok conspiracies.

"Who do you think killed the children?"

Well, whenever someone says " I don't think she did it" they are insinuating that Patrick did it despite their being no physical or circumstantial evidence he did because, well, he has a penis..

Ive never watched true crime documentaries but i have watched this trial.
I think that the medical experts disagree on wether LC suffered PPS/auditory command hallucinations. I think that will be reflected in the jurys decision. I dont think the prosecution proved sanity at the time of the killings beyond a doubt and think some jurors will think the same . if 1 juror has doubt that will be a hung jury/mistrial.

Not guilty isn’t on the cards.

I find it baffling that people think she will be found not guilty, when this isn’t an option. The options are:

Did she kill the children because due to psychosis?

Or did she kill the children in cold blood.

If the jury cannot reach a verdict it will be a hung trial and she will need to be re-tried.

nowhere is a not guilty verdict a possibility. It’s a known fact that she killed the children. They just need to establish why.

There is no investigation into Patrick because he didn’t kill the children.

And anyone who thinks the police just rocked up at the house, took a man’s word for the fact that an unconscious woman said she killed the children and worked with that has been watching too much conspiracy shite on TikTok.

Personally I think she’s guilty. Mentally ill? Well yeah, nobody who murders anyone is mentally normal are they? Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, anyone else who has done time in broadmoor, and for that matter anyone else who has committed a heinous crime is mentally ill as in not mentally normal. We don’t consider them to be any less of an awful individual because of the crimes they committed though.

Not guilty isn’t on the cards.
The options are:
Did she kill the children because due to psychosis?
Or did she kill the children in cold blood.
If the jury cannot reach a verdict it will be a hung trial and she will need to be re-tried.

Good point. If the Jury decides she was psychotic she doesn't just walk free, she will be detained in a secure psychiatric hospital.

I'd regard that as far worse than a women's prison.

The judge held up the jury voting form and went thru each option. "Not guilty" is on there. Separate from NGRI. But nobody has asked them to return that verdict.

Also they don't have to find psychosis proven. Just that she was ill enough that she can't be held responsible.

Have you actually watched the trial? Ive watched it all. Not guilty is very much an option. The judge has said it many times at the end, Big Kev also asked for the bowden charge to be applied due to the shoddy police investigation but that was denied. At the end of the trial its blatantly obvious that Kev is going for not guilty and stating there isnt the evidence she did it. I mean the entire trial is 'Patrick said'. The evidence in the trial shows that the police did rock up and take the man's word for it. It beggars belief but its true. Ive watched every single hour of it, and my mind has been blown.

I'd say Patrick having a CCTV proven alibi and Lindsay recounting the crime many times may have had some bearing on the investigation.

Well the BBC thinks not guilty is an option.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93vgv4kr49o

This absolutely. I hope so too.

Looks like not today.

Not guilty at all is an option. But I think the defense thought it would be way too hard to make that one stick because if he was going for not guilty he would have to show that PC, or someone else, was the one to have done it, so going for NGRI was the one he’s hoping for. He planted some seeds throughout the trial like she couldn’t talk so how did she speak to PC, and the lemonade wasn’t tested so we’ve only PCs word that there were crushed pills in it and how did the Apple Watch show movement when she was in hospital in a coma things like that.

I think during the trial he changed tack a little bit after seeing the reaction of the public. Would he have asked for a Bowden instruction if there hadn’t been such a reaction to the case with people questioning the evidence and timeline? Probably not, but he asked for it so that we know he also thinks there are questions - or is seen to be thinking. Who knows what he actually thinks but he’s said once or twice in the trial ‘she killed the kids’ but he also knows the investigation wasn’t thorough.

There are way too many questions with this case. Quite frankly a lot doesn’t make any sense.
If she was on trial for the killing of a random person then this evidence would point to her not being guilty or create enough reasonable doubt for a not guilty, but because there could only have been two people who killed the children she seems the more likely one and the evidence is explained to fit her actions rather than the evidence showing her actions.

Maybe it is all true and what they say happened did actually happen we haven’t heard from LC as to what happened in her words. The trial is to show she was insane or was not insane, who knows what the truth is.

Also Ian Brady and Myra Hindley kidnapped children and tortured them.
Im not saying that killing children is a normal thing to do obviously it’s abhorrent but it’s not the same as LC and what happened.

It's the same in the sense that Brady had a mental illness that allowed him/compelled him to do what he did. If we're going to say "poor LC she wasn't responsible for her actions" then we need to say the same for Peter Sutcliffe et al.

Brady was obviously a psychopath but at his trial an insanity defense wasn’t brought up it wasn’t part of the trial he never said he was having bouts of psychosis when he did what he did. Maybe if he had he would have been sentenced to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison who knows.

However, a normal loving mother who seeks help for mental health issues and deteriorates before killing her children, while horrific and obviously an abhorrent act, is not the same as hunting for children, kidnapping, torturing and killing them.
Ok sure the prosecution thinks she’s the same as Brady, that she got fed up with being a mother and planned to just kill them and pretend to kill herself so she can get rid of the kids but I’m not sure the evidence they presented showed that.

Brady didn;t have a mental illness - he had a severe personality disorder and was detained at a special hospital because of this under the category of 'mental impairment'. He was unmanageable in prison due to his extreme manipulative behaviour. No evidence of psychosis

Sutcliffe on the other hand was transferred to a special hospital because he was suffering from schizophrenia - there was dispute amongst the court appointed psychiatrists about his fitness to plead* which was overruled so that 'justice was seen to be done' then after conviction was quietly moved from prison to Broadmoor for treatment after the public lost interest.

*Sutcliffe was falsely accused of faking his delusions and hallucinations/copying his wife's symptoms [she was already diagnosed with schizophrenia] - he experienced hallucinations of god's voice instructing him to kill his victims

Brady was mentally ill, that's not up for debate.

Agree about Sutcliffe. We'll never be sure. He'd researched his own condition more deeply than his doctors. I've heard him described as an insane guy pretending to be a sane guy pretending to be insane. But you could argue the opposite.

It really doesn't matter to my point whicb was clear enough. Just pick your own "insane but not psychotic" murderer who was convicted.

A personality disorder is not a mental illness as defined by mental health professionals based on international psychiatric classifications - you can keep saying that it is but you are incorrect

Sutcliffe was clearly mentally ill from extensive pre-trial assessments and his long incarceration in Broadmoor [1984-2016] - he was returned to prison in 2016 as no longer suffering from paranoid schizophrenia

You might 'not be sure' about his diagnosis but plenty of trained mental health professionals were and still are

She admitted it but had no recollection of doing it. She was profoundly unwell. He is a charlatan. I would not be surprised if she didn't do it.

As I say, it doesn't really affect my point. Clearly nutters do kill people and end up in custody for it. Just pick a nutter that suits you.

I specifically cited Sutcliffe, so obviously I'm confident he was a nutter. Another poster disagreed and I was meeting her half way.

Not because he has a penis. Because he is selfish to the point of inhumane. he abandoned his extremely ill wife to cope with young children, and moved in with another woman shortly after this traumatic event. Cold blooded behaviour.

Cold-blooded, selfish people tend to be more capable of such cruelty than kind, warm people, as she was widely held to be until this happened.

I am not saying he did it. But I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he had.

I was on a jury for a murder trial. There was much discussion over whether the killer was mad. Some jurors understandably felt that to kill a stranger, unprovoked, you have to be mad. It took some time to work out that how a killer behaves before and after the killing is what helps identify whether they were actually insane at the point of the murder. In our case, he was extremely calculating and clear-headed in both his planning and his attempts to save himself from being caught immediately afterwards. That was what constitued sanity.

Yup, planning and any attempt to escape make an insanity defence very problematic.

Of course there's always jury nullification.