Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

The defense does have to present an argument and they have been trying to present the argument she wasn’t responsible for her actions

The defence has to question the evidence brought forward by the prosecution

Then present a case for the defendant, which hasn't happened yet in this case.

The prosecution always goes first because they carry the burden of proof to a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes I am aware. My general point was about whether LC was criminally insane if you read what I said in the context of my full post, rather than the ins and outs of the legal professions.

I would also argue that your point ‘it hasn’t happened yet in this case’ is inaccurate. The defense attorney has been constantly trying to hammer home his theory of the case when questioning witnesses for the prosecution. Technically he hasn’t but —— he has.

But this is the key. The reality is that we don’t believe that women should have their children removed, however every time a woman murders her children the automatic assumption is that she must have been mentally ill. That no woman would murder her children otherwise, and yet when a man does the same thing he’s an evil bastard.

Why can’t we just accept that there are evil women out there who murder their children in cold blood.

There is no evidence that she was suffering from post partum psychosis, only an assumption.

She 100% killed the children and has admitted to doing so.

And yet the internet and TikTok sleuths who refuse to believe that a woman is capable of murdering her children are assuming that the man did it despite the evidence to the contrary and the confession from the mother.

Every time we excuse a woman of murder on the basis of “mental health” we reinforce the stigma that post natal women aren’t safe around their children. Is this really what people want?

That's a very weak moot point. The defense has an obligation to question the evidence brought forward by the prosecution.

Sure- I’d argue the same about your point

But the trial hasn't finished yet so no conclusion can be made.

We are agreed that PPS exists.

We are agreed that LC was on a myriad of medication.

Don’t forget the fact that the husband had rang her while he was gone to ask her a question about the laxative she had sent him to get, and he said that when she answered the phone, it sounded like she was out of breath and in the middle of “doing something that he had interrupted”. I guess she was able to miraculously snap out of her psychotic murderous episode for a few seconds to have a completely coherent chat with her husband! Not a single person can convince me that she wasn’t aware of what she was doing at the time that she was doing it. She’s 🦇💩 but NOT insane. There’s a difference.

The husband is awful too and probably doesn’t care all that much that this happened. There is proof that he was hiking in Costa Rica a month after this tragedy happened. He raised over a million $ through donations and still chose to cremate the children (the cheapest possible option). He didn’t even bother to include their full middle names on the cremation plot (that all three children are sharing). He has an active lawsuit against the hospital for negligence/medical malpractice so will probably be receiving even more money. Those poor children stood no chance with these two as their parents.

I’m more than willing to have my mind changed if evidence is presented to show she had pps.

This.

There's no need to present evidence to show that LC had PPS.

That boat has long sailed.

There's every need to question the misdiagnosis and heavy medication.

I really don’t think it had sailed.

Are you aware that in order to be found not guilty the jury has to find that LC was incapable of making any other choice? That she was so far gone that she wasn’t aware she was doing?

psychosis is the whole basis of the case. If she was just having side effects from the medication then she could have not killed her kids and therefore she is guilty.

Of course there is. The psychosis is the foundation of this trial.

She’s not on trial to determine whether she killed the children, she did. The trial is to determine whether her killing the children was murder or insanity brought on by psychosis. If there’s no psychosis diagnosis then she’s guilty of murder.

But that's for the prosecution to prove.

It's for the prosecution to prove that she didn't have psychosis.

There are two cases. Criminal and civil.

The criminal trial is about whether she murdered her children and, if so, whether she is criminally responsible because of her mental state.

Lots of people falsely believe that she has admitted to killing her children and therefore the only issue before the court is whether there was criminal responsibility but that’s incorrect.

The plea in the criminal case is not guilty. If she had pled guilty, we would be a sentencing hearing right now and not a trial. She has an affirmative defence. An affirmative defence is that IF the jury finds she committed the offence, did she do so with criminal responsibility.

The question of whether she committed the murders in the first place is still VERY much on the table. The prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she committed the crimes because before they can prove that there is no crime for the affirmative defence to attach to.

She did NOT confess to the murders. What people are stating when they say that is referring to her CIVIL case or the speculation that came out in court yesterday which may render any potential confession post-intubation as inadmissible.

You are completely wrong about this and I suggest you look at the facts of the criminal case again.

Even LCs lawyer has said ‘she killed her 3 kids’ in court.

It is not about whether she did it it is about whether she was criminally insane at the time.

I'm of the belief that she was potentially doctor shopping and actively seeking out a specific diagnosis + specific medications...

where can I watch it from the start or at least Live/recorded please .
I

To reiterate. This case is about the burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, that LC killed her children intentionally and in sane mind.

On you tube. Just search Lindsay Clancy trial you tube. It's time constricted, so not live.

I'll make a prediction right now. She's going to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. This happened in Massachusetts. Juries in Massachusetts (and basically the whole of New England) are incredibly lenient. They do not like to convict people in general, but they especially do not like to convict women. Look at other cases that have been tried in Massachusetts. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Juries are mostly very predictable.

I think there was DNA on the bands ,there was multiple family members DNA on the bands (they were in the household so that would be expected) There wasnt any usable finger prints due to the texture of the bands.

So she's going to be found also not guilty of intentional murder?

If the former, not guilty of murder by insanity, she'll still be legally required to be institutionalised until she is no longer deemed a danger to society. That could last a lifetime.