Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

Bloody hell re Scotland!

No. But she was a fellow solicitor. It was a very clear cut case (apart from the perverse man who didn't understand the components of the crime in question). She had been telling me how glad she was not to be in work and was hoping to be assigned a week long case. It ended up being only a 2 day one. And then when we retired started saying really vague stuff about how she wasn't sure etc etc - so I was pretty convinced she was dragging it out on purpose. It was fairly obvious but not enough that you could complain.

That's them all just getting together to agree a way forward and file motions. The new trial won't commence then I don't think. Too soon. But it will be a new jury.

11 of them came to the same conclusion. The upset caused was by the sole juror.

My dear departed then MIL was on a jury. Awful case involving terrible violence but thankfully not murder.

After the trial, she absolutely didn't discuss anything about it whilst on service, she admitted that she thought he was guilty as soon as she set eyes on him. It was an unanimous decision to find him guilty.

After it was disclosed that his previous violent behaviour and convictions were numerous and equally shocking. Right decision.

DA is about to say whether they will seeks another trial for first degree murder or a lesser charge

• Edited to say he has said they won't announce today what charges will be in any retrial and he has brought it back to those innocent victims

No it'll be
Prosecution refiles for retrial.
The prosecution and defense discuss possible pleas.
The judge may assess dismissal.

New trial date end of September

That's the status hearing not a new trial

It depends on what the reconvening of the court decides on Tuesday 29 September.

If a retrial is allowed by the judge then a new date for the trial will be set possibly not until late 2027. Depends on the backlog.

Yeah right.

Me too. There is an established procedure for a juror failing to do their job properly, the Judge is aware of it and referred to it. The juror was asked if they were willing to follow instructions regarding burden of proof amd said yes.

Occam's razor says the holdout genuinely came to their conclusion from their interpretation of the evidence, and it's easy to see how they came to that conclusion since the defence claims a short period of extreme psychosis just long enough to cover the crime punctuated by a lucid phone call and texts which many people would regard as far fetched.

Reform said that if they win the next general election, they will hold a referendum on bringing back the death penalty. Can you imagine being sentenced to death in England when we don’t require a unanimous verdict?

One of the notes from the foreperson said that the juror has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states, this is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision.

The judge said retrial hopefully in the fall. Reddington asked for next week.

I can't say I'm shocked. The jury should have been protected from the media at all opportunities here especially armchair sleuths and the conspiracy theorists. Most of whom border on the insane.

I hope that lessons here are learned for the next trial.

Just catching up but felt I really had to reply to this. I have been on anti depressants that knocked me for 6, I would be sleeping 18 hours a day and still need a nap. I have also recently transitioned from the anti psycotic Olazapine, that has a known sedative effect, I mean some days just brushing my teeth was a victory. To say 'the notion that meds make you drowsy or unresponsive is nonsense' is frankly nonsense. I and others have lived experience.

The man hate is pretty awful on this thread. Poor man had his three children murdered by his crazy wife. The last thing they saw was their mother's face as she slowly killed them!

The husband probably trusted her judgement when it came to all the medication she was taking, because she was a RN. She may have been very manipulative as well. My daughter-in-law was/is extremely manipulative, but is not as intelligent as LC, not by a long shot, so thankfully her manipulating wasn't as effective. My former daughter-in-law also had/has psychosis and my son saved his two month old baby's life by acting very quickly. I'm still traumatized by what we went through that terrible weekend. Ever seen a mother hold a knife over her two month old baby, or run into the snow in a blizzard to hide a baby - who's wearing only a little sleeveless undershirt? That shit stays with you, and leaves you with no sympathy for child killers.

There was some discussion about LC's body temperature earlier in the thread; so I'll leave this with you.
"The brain cannot properly regulate body temperature below the site of a spinal cord injury because the damage blocks vital nerve signals between the brain's control center and the rest of the body". They would have taken her temperature rectally in the ER, and her arse was below the injury.

I'm super angry at the people who want to see this woman walk free. She'll always be mentally ill and there'll always be babies & children around.

Please read about this another mother.

Constance Margaret Fisher (March 26, 1929 – October 1, 1973) She killed three of her children in Maine in 1954, & after spending several years in a mental institution, she was released, only to kill three more of her children in 1966.

Firstly we don't know what the note said.

Secondly, IF the holdout said "I am not sure beyond reasonable doubt verdict X is correct but that is my verdict." and stuck to it then they could and would be replaced. Ergo they didn't say that.

If (say)at one point they weren't sure but then their opinion firmed up for some reason then that is not ignoring instructions. They are even allowed to change their minds. That's not even remarkable, it's a normal jury.

...but most of.all, the Judge knews the rules on this and stated the rules on this and he's seen the note. So it's a bit of a stretch to think it slipped his mind to dispose of the juror, and the appeal will change the decision to call a mistrial.

I think let's let the jury do its job.

Yes we do know what it said.

Jennifer Sprague read out the notes in the Supreme Court hearing or whatever it was earlier. I watched it live

Reform UK has also promised an immediate national emergency if they gain power in 2029 and a 24/7, 7/7 working week without breaks in Parliament for 100 days to pass through legislation and may even stop the powers of the House of Lords and restrict the judiciary.

Totally bonkers. However people will still vote for them.

@GeorginaWilby her husband knew how unwell she was, yet he went off on a boys trip away and a skiing holiday. She was badly let down by him.

"Jennifer Sprague read out the notes in the Supreme Court hearing or whatever it was earlier. I watched it live"

But just because he/she had doubts this doesn't mean reasonable doubt though

The judge said that the jurors must have a reasonable and moral certainty. You might be reasonably certain but as a conscientious juror have doubts because reasonable and moral certainty is not the same as 100% certain.

After all if the case and evidence was clear cut and unequivocal it probably wouldn't have gone to trial - and finding someone guilty has a moral weight to it

This juror had this explained by the judge and evidently still had a "reasonable and moral certainty".

The foreperson sent 2 notes about this juror

First note said " A member of the jury is unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt, how should we proceed?"

The judge brought each juror in individually for the voir dire and asked if they were able to follow his instructions, they all said yes, the judge then reinstructed on reasonable doubt.

The second note said " Juror number X has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states, this is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision"

So by the sounds of that they were saying that he was not following the instructions as given, and was expressing stronger doubts but still would not choose the verdict that the court obliged him to in those circumstances.

Definitely, I've only ever tried mirtazapine, also referred to as remeron in the trial.

I only went on a low dose for insomnia, it doesn't work as an antidepressant at that dose, and the tiniest bit of it will knock me out cold, i say tiny bit cos I literally chewed a corner off it to see if I could get to sleep without the sedated effects the next day, but even on that I could easily sleep 18 hours, be wrecked afterwards and be like a zombie all day because the half life is so long. I only take it very occasionally now instead of nightly because I'm a disaster the next day on it. Occasionally when i took it every night it didn't put me to sleep so I was exhausted but awake and sedated instead.