Lindsay Clancy trial continued.

[placemats]

Previous thread here.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5565097-lindsay-clancy-trial?page=10&reply=154694959

Since she is paralyzed from the waist down, not sure she will be having more children.

re hospital - depends on how long she is deemed to be mentally ill for if that is the finding. Some people - like the woman who killed her 5 children in the 90s (Texas I think) - decline the chance to leave hospital when up for review. But its impossible to say how long she would be there.

I am also very interested to see how things turn out for the juror who held out. If he lied on his questionnaire I think there should be proceedings against him, as he effectively forced the mistrial.

You don’t become infertile because you’re paralysed from the waist down…

What does that mean in the context of this case? Lindsay Clancy is on suicide watch in a psychiatric hospital 24/7.

Maybe read the previous posts.

Andrea Yates?

Maybe don't tell me what to do.

So you are asking a disingenuous question just to have a dig? Ok.

I developed PPD after my second, but think it was probably PPP although I never had that diagnosis. I didn't have hallucinations but very fixed delusions that there was something wrong with my newborn, and just kept taking him to a&e about normal newborn stuff. I still vividly remember how awful I felt, how intense the feelings were; I didn't have any thoughts about harming my kids but this case really makes me wonder; what if I had of? I was in such a dark place. Any way, that's just my reflection.

I think we all bring our own history to this case and view it via that lens. As you might guess, I feel sympathetic to the NGBI defence. I can't prove it's right, but my balance of probabilities is that it is. Is that because of bias, and a subconscious projection of my experience? Maybe.

But equally I can't understand why that Facebook post is thought to prove anything against her. I don't think she says anything worse than half the parenting posts on here, and not worse than what I say about mine for sure.

Do agree with the argument about 'if she was a babysitter'. Interesting how the perception changes when it's your own kids.

Ramblings over.

Yes, lots of similarities.

Oh the Facebook post doesn’t prove anything at all but to me it’s OTT for someone to say their son has been the most annoying human since 8 months old.

I just think that LC had expectations that motherhood should be perfect and then she found it wasn’t.

I think the case is inherently complicated though. Ultimately, none of us can see inside someone’s mind and know for sure what their motives are.

Psychiatrists diagnose illness based on behaviours or reported behaviours.

The hearing is today. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/lindsay-clancy-child-murder-case-b3058098.html

Im fascinated by how this is going to go today. From what I understand Big Kev is asking for an acquital based on the holdout juror, double jeopardy, and the holdout jurors phone records. Be interesting to see what the prosecution want to do - if they want to retry at all, and will it be same charges, or reduced.

The holdout jurors lawyer is gunning for Big Kev now so its still quite dramatic this trial. Anything could happen.

I thought today’s events were fascinating, in particular the fact that Reddington is now openly saying to the prosecution that there’s no actual evidence that Lindsay did it.

That was unexpected. Although, he did want to argue that at the first trial too but wasn’t permitted so possibly shouldn’t have been a surprise to me!

I hate sounding like a conspiracy theorist but I think there’s credible evidence to suggest that the case needs to be re-investigated. I’m not saying she didn’t do it, just that there was a very poor investigation that failed to collect proper evidence, instead preferring to rely on what Patrick said.

I think that’s what lots of women feel uneasy about; not necessarily certain what happened but clear about the fact that the investigation was severely lacking.

I wonder what will happen in November?

Thank you for the summary @SpidersAreShitheads

Reddington also mentioned about how well known the trial was that even Donald Trump commented on it.

What will happen in November is anyone's guess.

The reason he's saying that she didn't do it is because he filed a rule 25 motion, which is where they say the prosecution didn't prove their case and so they ask the judge to enter a not guilty verdict.

It is not possible due to how the law is written for the judge to enter a NGRI verdict, so Reddington has to argue it this way and explain how they missed all the factors for a guilty verdict like x evidence, admissions of guilt etc etc.so it's a procedural thing.

People claiming NGRI have to be afforded the same rights to file the same motion and the rule 25 motion isn't specifically set up for people who claimed NGRI so it's a bit awkward procedurally and they have to fit it around the motion.

If they decide to retry her then the defence are definitely going to plead NGRI again 100%.

@SpidersAreShitheads
I think it's possible he could have exclusively focused on them not proving criminal responsibility instead and that the judge can enter NG (not NGRI) based on that but there's no downside for them really in trying the main angle as a second route (aside from it being misinterpreted publicly) also, especially when the prosecutions case did miss a lot of vital components.

Thank you @kkloo for your update which clarifies the hearing succinctly. I must admit that I hadn't a clue what was happening.

What did they both agree on? My interpretation was fixing another trial date.

@placemats
Yep, they thought it was premature to set another trial date before the motions had been dealt with.

Reddington said he has other cases so can't do a retrial before June, and Judge Sullivan is facing mandatory retirement in June so if there's a retrial and they can't do an earlier time it will be a new judge too.

Thanks once again.

Yes, thank you @kkloo, that’s a more comprehensive description of my understanding.

Also, I knew that at the declaration of the mistrial, Reddington was making statements that he knew the judge wouldn’t go for, but would give the defence options at these hearings. I can’t remember the technical name, but essentially that because the judge chose not to avail himself of other available options and instead declared a mistrial, the can now assert that they can’t hold the trial again. I think it might be part of the double jeopardy assertion?

I am glad that the defence are finally able to say out loud and in court that there is no concrete evidence of her guilt. I think it’s shocking that a case can get this far without being properly proven.

Are there any good threads discussing the evidence, do you know? I’m not going on TikTok, it’s full of crazy people with wild theories. I’m just interested in a factual assessment that examines both sides.

I thought it was wild. I was thrilled when Big Red started saying that LC was innocent and there is no evidence and 'Patrick Said' and the investigation was terrible. He hadn't said that before - I think because he couldn't.

I wasnt expecting it, but I thought it was amazing. Was this his plan all along? Maybe. Ive never followed a trial before but it seems like there is a game of chess going on in the background. Fascinating.

Yes, another lawyer is handling the double jeopardy motion, not Reddington, so yesterday they were asking for the jury notes and sidebar transcripts because they want those to support the motion, and then the female lawyer is representing the hold out juror and she wants to prevent the defence from getting and publicising information concerning him.

Not that I am aware, I would avoid the duxbury deaths free talk sub because they're as crazy as the tiktok crowd, I was following it on the cases we follow sub, that's more biased in the NGRI direction but I haven't seen wild theories etc so I liked that sub but there isn't that many threads apart from the daily trial ones..

Yes Reddington said that "the entire case was based on speculation.".

Specific emphasis was given about the state of the bedroom, the lack of bloody smears on the floor and the so called broken screen, or not broken screen. Mention was given to the crushed drugs in a glass on the night stand - bedside table.

Also discussed the time frame for the murders and the attempted suicide and that even the prosecution thought it was tight. Reddington described it as "ridiculous".

He also discussed the core body temperature, how it would take at least two hours to reach 82F. And that Lindsay Clancy had to be brought back to life with blood transfusions all whilst in a coma.

Just want to clarify something from my previous comment.

In the first trial Lindsay pleaded Not guilty, NGRI is just the defence put forward, it's not the actual plea.

It's a very interesting development though, Initially I was just thinking of it from the perspective of the rule 25 motion, however it is possible that he wil go down this route in a retrial, concede nothing and say first of all prove she did it and then if you prove that she did it you have to prove she's criminally responsible, that makes things a lot more difficult for the prosecution.

The prosecution already brought their evidence that she did it even though Lindsay wanted to stipulate to it, and it still didn't convince the jury and that was without Reddington challenging it, next time he could attack it at all angles.

The only real issue with it is that obviously it's playing into theories that Patrick did it, and Patrick was a good witness for the defence. If I was the prosecution I'd call Patrick last in a retrial.