Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

Wondering too. Even if she’s determined legally to not be mentally well surely there’s some action for what happened.

Pot/Kettle.

It was a simple question regarding your expertise on the subject and not your subjective opinion.

Yet your response was defensively snippy and pejorative.

Very much this.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a handful of online loons, but there's a significant percentage in this thread that suggests there's a very large number of women who share these views.

I would have thought that having had PND would make someone less empathetic not more. Unless that person had themselves had intrusive thoughts about murdering their children.

Because if not, then the implication here from those saying someone with PND should be more empathetic is that anyone with PND is capable of murder, and we know that’s not the case.

It’s entirely understandable that a woman who herself has suffered from PND and who would never have entertained the idea of murdering her children would feel less empathy for one who did exactly that.

MH is already stigmatised, and indeed we do know that there are certain conditions where someone can prove to be a danger to themselves or others. However when you start to tell someone who has had PND that they should be empathetic to a murderer with the same condition, you’re implying that that person should know what it feels like to want to murder their children, when clearly this poster does not, due to the fact she isn’t a murderer or wannabe murderer herself.

Yes some of the stuff I’ve seen is whacky (like the suggestion his girlfriend did it, or he had a CVS body double), but there are actually some genuine things that don’t seem to add up BECAUSE there was no decent investigation. I struggle with anyone arguing that all the evidence is on the table. Like why is he looking up how to disable her car airbags? And why did he tell so many lies about stuff? Was it grief? Was it shock? Who knows…. And that’s the problem. If there had been a proper investigation we would know. I don’t necessarily think he did it, but some footage of him at CVS doesn’t actually provide more powerful evidence than the sheer improbability she committed it all within that tiny window, particularly when the neighbours saw her lying in the snow earlier than would have been practically possible for the EMT to get a heartbeat back for the baby, had she killed him before she jumped out the window.

Everyone experiences grief differently, but I don’t think anyone can actually deny there has been something incredibly odd about his demeanour since. Or maybe I’m the only one that doesn’t think I’d be up to a luxury hiking holiday 3 weeks after all my children were murdered. I remember seeing footage of him talking at a memorial service fairly soon after the children’s deaths and being somewhat amazed he seemed to be charming the room, while I could only imagine struggling to put together a sentence through the copious amount of prescription drugs I’d need to be on to cope. That doesn’t mean he is guilty, perhaps he just wasn’t too upset, and he hoped some of his behaviours would push her over the edge, and he was fine when they did.

Those three kids deserve for the truth (whatever that is) to be properly put into the spotlight, and they deserved a proper trial, not the dodgy job done by all levels of policing and prosecution. No one should actually be invested in any outcome because all that matters is the truth and the investigation and prosecution has been shit to the point I don’t believe the truth is clear. I wonder why some people have such a vested interest in her being an evil mother who committed a heinous act with her full faculties in tact, noting that not one single person (including the paternal grandparents of the children) have come forward and said she was anything other than a loving, dedicated, and decent mother. Believing she spent 5 years hiding her true personality from everyone and just patiently waited for a well timed 15 min window to be her true murderous self seems as much of a conspiracy theory as the others…..

Everyone is entitled to a defence/defense when accused, in this case of being of sound mind when the murders took place.

However, on this thread, despite an acknowledgement that those with serious dysfunctional MH are often misunderstood, those defending, or have a reasonable doubt, are described as loony, weirdos and unhinged.

Edit Whacky conspiracy theorists.

Read the links?

There was a proper investigation and, like all investigations, everyone is a suspect until they've been ruled out. Nobody was overlooked, they were carefully checked and ruled out.

Nothing in your post is good evidence against the Husband, it's nit picking. (...and not much of that either!)

I really don’t think you watched a great deal of the trial, which is fair enough. It was pretty long. I don’t consider telling blatant lies about how she confessed to him when she was unable to speak, or googling how to disable your spouse’s car airbags as minor ‘nitpicking’. Not one person has posted any actual physical evidence to suggest that it was definitively her. .
Let’s for a second pretend she was still in a coma and had never spoken a word since that night. What tangible evidence would you put forward to support the theory she is evil and did it all? Noting for a second her prints aren’t even on the knife she used to cut her wrists and throat (let alone any of the bands), the injury to her thyroid and related area isn’t consistent with either the cut or the fall, and that she was either unconscious or so drug effected (or otherwise impacted) when she went headfirst out the window that she didn’t have the normal physical reflex to use her hands to break her fall.

Watching the trial shows that the investigation was very limited. Funnily enough, of the 12 jurors, 11 clearly find there is reasonable doubt around some aspects of the evidence from sitting through it. I’d suggest you are the one with some blinkers on, not the people who are simply arguing that the maths ain’t mathing here. People are clearly stating where they see some of the gaps, yet no one is offering any reason why she held her murderous evil in for 5’years and then just one day let it out of the cage….

You don't need to mansplain the terms to me.

I just disagree with your interpretation of why the note was sent.

The whole thing is a circus - it shouldn't have been a streamed trial, they shouldn't allow this nutty women dressed in pink to be outside court.

One women supporter said Nancy was just sleep deprived?! Someone needs to be accountable so that this doesn't set a precedent for others to kill their kids and claim insanity!

I know there are bad people in society (Not mentaly ill, just bad.) but it sounds like you think women are just waiting, queing up, for a chance/reason/excuse to kill their kids?
Not trying to start an arguement, just curious where your reasoning comes from?

11 of the Jurors are going NGRI. That does not mean they think the Husband did it, it means the opposite, they think beyond reasonable doubt she did it. In this situation you're the hold out not me, I'd be one of the 11, you're arguing NG based on nit picking. (And it is nit picking.)

You asked me to explain it to you:

"Why are you saying 'well yes'?"

You really haven’t watched it all. They have NG as an actual option, not just NGRI. Her defense put in a motion to have the questions considered separately (first whether she did it at all, and then if guilty, whether insanity). That was denied so it is all lumped together. You have no clue whether the 11 are for NG or NGRI, and neither do I.

Well yes we don't know for sure if the 11 are NGRI. But if they're going for murder 1 then why would Reasonable Doubt be relevant to the holdout? And why would the defence want the hold out kicked out?

If, as I suspect, you're saying you think the 11 are opting for NG then that means all of the 11 don't believe things the defence have actually admitted to. Possible, but pretty unlikely!

Possible is not the opposite of unlikely (pretty is redundant here).

There's no indication of why this juror is not complying with the judge's directions.

No I didn't.

I asked why you were saying 'well yes'? because it can be a rude and condescending and patronising term, and we then moved past that.

I definitely did not ask you at any point to mansplain the note, or any legal processes regarding issues with the jurors.

You obviously aren’t actually watching it. The defence had to walk a delicate line through the trial, knowing the trial had multiple possible outcomes in the same trial. It’s why he asked for the questions to be separated, but this request was denied.
Tell me, if you think the defence lawyer is SO sure that she did it, why has he presented evidence to suggest she may not have and to highlight all the inconsistencies in the evidence? Why bother showing all the ways Patrick lied on the 911 call and in the hours and days after? Why would he say outside court that he wouldn’t believe Patrick if Patrick told him it was snowing in a blizzard? Why did he show up allllll the ways the investigation was lacking? Surely none of it would be relevant to his position as seen by you…..

I have no idea what the jury is currently hung on… you don’t either, despite your extreme confidence. None of us know. They could be debating between murder 1 and manslaughter and the reasonable doubt might be around motive. We don’t actually know

I wholeheartedly believe that the societal reaction to this same case would have been much different if Lindsay had been an unmarried younger mum of 3 who was financially struggling, working at McDonald's (or possibly unemployed), living in a rough area, and not what society deems as conventionally attractive. Would she be receiving this level of sympathy and support? I highly doubt it. I also believe that a man who did this and claimed regular psychosis or schizophrenia would be viewed quite negatively and would not be being called a 'good father'. It's difficult for people to believe that someone like her (a conventionally attractive well-educated suburban mother, wife, and nurse) could have done this whilst completely sane.

Look at how many people focus on and criticise the physical appearance of the prosecution. Tell me there's not some level of superficiality at play there.

Why bother showing all the ways Patrick lied on the 911 call and in the hours and days after?

I'm not sure he was doing this, I took this to mean that memories created under such traumatic circumstances can be very distorted, and seeing as they used the exact words she apparently said as part of their conclusion that she was criminally responsible he pointed out that the source may not be reliable, but unfortunately did not develop this point properly. It is possible he played into the conspiracy theories a bit there, although the point on memory was a stronger point to the jury and a weak point in the prosecutions case, but unfortunately he didn't develop this point, but if there's a retrial he will.

Why would he say outside court that he wouldn’t believe Patrick if Patrick told him it was snowing in a blizzard?

He was talking about the psychiatrist there, not Patrick.

Why did he show up allllll the ways the investigation was lacking?

Again with this I think it was because the prosecution are saying pre-meditated and pushing murder 1, but to show pre-meditation a more concrete timeline or investigation really should have been done. Like with the crushing of the pills, why didn't they test the cup or try to find what she crushed them with? That surely should have been done, and surely they should have looked to see what she crushed them with, if there was no evidence that she'd just crushed up a load of tablets then wouldn't that suggest that she had crushed them up earlier or another day in preparation? One of the prosecution witnesses made out it was a mammoth task to crush pills and so seemed to be suggesting someone psychotic couldn't do this, but yet there's no evidence whatsoever put forward to prove anything about the crushing or what was used.

Was it not Lindsay who Googled how to disable the airbags?

No it was Patrick. He signed into her account when she was at the dr with the kids. One of the many things that ppl believe which has been proven untrue with the data analysis. Like looking up carotid artery but spelling it wrong. Also him.

Based on what they presented in the trial, those searches weren’t hers. There was some doubt about the search around ‘can a sociopath be cured’ but even if that was her search, there is no evidence to say she was thinking of herself.

The defence can concede she did it but still sow as much doubt as possible in the jury's minds. That's pretty much their job. The fact they've conceded she did it doesn't mean they won't do what they can to get an NG.

They don't even have to present a consistent theory of the case. They can say "She didn't do it, but if she did it was beciasenshe was temporarily psychotic."

But as it happens, they have conceded that she did it.

No we don't know what the jury are debating but there is one possibility that has a greater liklihood than the others for reasons already explained.

Looks like mistrial within the next minute.