Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

With the civil suits that are happening does anyone have an idea of how a verdict of anything other the NGRI would impact them? Because surely if the whole basis of a lawsuit is especially you failed me so badly I became unwell enough to kill my kids wouldn't hold up if she does get found NG or straight guilty

Men (usually) who kill their children and then themselves don’t do it because they’re insane. There can be a number of reasons.

As for the paralysis, that wasn’t intended. I personally don’t believe Clancy intended to kill herself and, if that were the case, then she suffered unforeseen/fluke injuries. If she did intend to kill herself, she chose an ill-suited method.

Why do you think she did it just out of interest

If there is a mistrial, will she be freed, remanded into prison or a psychiatric facility?

Obviously I don’t know. All I have is an opinion. Initially I thought she did it because she was insane at the time, but having heard the trial and read more, I now doubt that. I think she was aware what she was doing was wrong and wasn’t ’out of her mind’.

Why did she do it? My guess is ongoing stress, exacerbated by a lack of sleep, so that she was worn down and kind of ‘flat’ emotionally. Stress, depression, lack of sleep all affect your reasoning and personality. Whether she then decided to kill all the children and planned that, or whether she snapped and killed one and then felt she ‘had to’ kill the others, I don’t know. I think she was frustrated - at them and at herself. When you’re exhausted and ‘flat’, sometimes the answer that comes to you isn’t one that would come to others or, even, one you might reach at a better time of your life, but at that time it seems the answer.

I suspect we're getting a verdict in the next few mins - or a mistrial

I'm expecting a mistrial

Same - whatever it is has pissed red off greatly

Breaking news now

Back to deliberations - i wonder what sparked the need for the jury to be reminded what reasonable doubt means

No conclusion

But is she saying that because she remembers doing it or basing that on what her husband told her?

I have actually looked after moms with Puerperal psychosis the one I remember was the dad kept inviting visitors around they were only young kids, it was like party house she wasn’t sleeping he wasn’t pulling his weight we were lucky got her into mother & baby mental health unit. Hope she was ok I didn’t see her again.

It's deadlock with the jury. Judge orders deliberations for a third time. He's extremely clear regarding the guilty verdict within the Commonwealth. No doubt whatsoever. Any other doubts is a not guilty verdict.

Apparently split 11-1 with one juror not following the law.

Everyone's going back into court now - red has requested that the juror holding out be replaced

The foreperson sent a note saying that one juror is refusing to follow the instructions of the law.
Reddington wanted the juror removed.

Judge Sullivan once again explained they had to follow his instructions and explained reasonable doubt to them again.

"As the judge says he's sending the jury home, one older female juror closes her eyes for an extended period. A male juror appears to laugh."

From the BBC website - sounds like the jury are getting fed up now - I think we'll see a mistrial tomorrow.

The juror should be charged with contempt of court for not following the judge's instructions.

Well yes, but the judge asked all of them including the holdout if they were willing to follow the law and they all said they were.

Why are you saying 'well yes'?
I just explained quickly what happened, because some people on the thread didn't know.

The judge asked if they were willing to follow the law and then instructed them again that they had to follow his instructions and then explained reasonable doubt again.

I'm guessing it's currently 11 - 1 NGRI with one juror saying guilty.
Reading between the lines it sounds like that juror does have reasonable doubt but is still saying guilty or am I misunderstanding?

Becaise it's true that the jury (likely) said one juror was not willing to follow the law but then the holdout (and the other Jurors) said they were willing to follow the law.

So despite what the jury say it sounds more like the holdout's opinion just differs from the others rather than the holdout is not willing to correctly apply the burden of proof: I very much doubt the holdout is saying "I don't GAF about the burden of proof." in the Jury Room and then saying they are happy to obey the law in the court.

I disagree, they've already came back twice saying they couldn't reach an agreement so I think they would have just came back a third time saying they couldn't reach an agreement if that was the case, to me it seems far more likely that this person is using arguments and reasons for their decision which are showing the other jurors they're not applying the law as they've been instructed to.

No there wasn't, but generally in Ireland I just don't think people really pay that much attention to things like this and trials anyway and if they are following them there are only really the daily news stories which will just have a few statements from testimony so I guess there isn't really enough to sustain all the debate.

Public opinion was split on Deirdre Morley but it didn't translate into media articles because it was more like 'She must have had serious mental health issues' and then 'mental health issues are no excuse' on facebook posts and then that was the end of that unless another news story popped up the next time there was a news story about it.
We obviously don't televise trials either, but if we did that would have been different and there would have been huge coverage and sustained interest in the case.