Modern Relationships and Lindsey Clancy Case. 3 Children Strangled. Overwhelming Support From Females and Male Backlash.

[ScooterJackson]

When I read your posts here and there on the forum, which I do less and less, I just think you must be a very negative and miserable person.
Sad.

Well, you believe wrong. God's warnings are very good in that it provides a way to not be caught in the traps the devil is catching so many in during these end times where so many are falling away from the faith and are embracing doctrines of devils.

Those ignoring God's warnings are doing so at the leading of devils who are tricking them in to thinking they are in right standing with the Lord when they actually are not.

The devil is very religious so it's not hard to trick most who claim to be Christians because they do not have the love of the Truth (God's Word) that they may be saved - 2 Thessalonians 2:10

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

More Pro"choice" advocacy..

 

[ZNP]

Lindsay Clancy's defense team is planning to file a motion to dismiss charges in the murder of three children.

 

[ScooterJackson]

She deserves the same treatment she gave her children.

 

[HeIsHere]

She deserves the same treatment she gave her children.

Shameful.

 

[HeIsHere]

The truth is coming out, thankfully!!!
There was no investigation and no real confession was ever made.

Sadly, it is probably to late for justice for those children, I doubt there will be a standard of proof against the guilty person(s).

So many lies and people here with no knowledge of the case wanted her put to death.
Shameful.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Shameful.

Yes, murdering little children like that is definitely shameful.

 

[HeIsHere]

Yes, murdering little children like that is definitely shameful.

You have zero credibility.

 

[ScooterJackson]

You have zero credibility.

No actually those that support people who murder innocent little babies have zero credibility.

So you actually take joy in supporting a mother that murdered her own children? Really?

 

[pinebeach]

Lindsay Clancy’s defense previously argued she was not criminally responsible for killing her three children because of postpartum
psychosis.

I think her lawyer is trying to create a psychosis in everyone else.

Can't have it both ways. Why did you allow the prior trial to try here for murder if now want to argue she didn't even kill her children?

This same lawyer has hounded the holdout juror who did believe she was guilty. Now he needs a lawyer to protect himself from the red herring attacks from this lawyer who obviously knows how to distract everyone from his client. What he is actually doing, is
creating a big shiny new thing so the actual reason for everyone being in court is (hopefully) no longer the news. Besides, now we can all question if she did what she did.

This lawyer is a manipulator.

It's shameful.

 

[ZNP]

Lindsay Clancy’s defense previously argued she was not criminally responsible for killing her three children because of postpartum
psychosis.

I think her lawyer is trying to create a psychosis in everyone else.

Can't have it both ways. Why did you allow the prior trial to try here for murder if now want to argue she didn't even kill her children?

This same lawyer has hounded the holdout juror who did believe she was guilty. Now he needs a lawyer to protect himself from the red herring attacks from this lawyer who obviously knows how to distract everyone from his client. What he is actually doing, is
creating a big shiny new thing so the actual reason for everyone being in court is (hopefully) no longer the news. Besides, now we can all question if she did what she did.

This lawyer is a manipulator.

It's shameful.

I think it is more than shameful, it is defamatory. It might be a criminal violation of the sixth amendment. Three of the jurors have publicly given interviews which could now be used in any trial (either to accuse the holdout juror of lying or to sue the lawyer for defaming him). In those interviews they made it clear the question was not about guilt, they knew she had murdered the three children viciously. The question was about whether or not she could tell right from wrong.

Now there was no evidence of her being psychotic prior to this event or since this event. So this question is even more narrow, was she able to tell right or wrong at the moment she was killing each of the three kids? One of the jurors in an interview said she saw this trial as an opportunity to raise the issue of post partum depression (lasting 8 months after your third child). So even though she could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay had a psychotic episode at the moment she was manipulating her husband to stay away while she killed the three children, she wanted it to be the case so they could start this conversation about post partum depression.

It seems to me this does raise an important issue when choosing a jury. Ask them "Do you intend to use this trial as a soap box to advance your personal agenda?"

 

[Sculpt]

Lindsay Clancy’s defense previously argued she was not criminally responsible for killing her three children because of postpartum
psychosis.

I think her lawyer is trying to create a psychosis in everyone else.

Can't have it both ways. Why did you allow the prior trial to try here for murder if now want to argue she didn't even kill her children?

This same lawyer has hounded the holdout juror who did believe she was guilty. Now he needs a lawyer to protect himself from the red herring attacks from this lawyer who obviously knows how to distract everyone from his client. What he is actually doing, is
creating a big shiny new thing so the actual reason for everyone being in court is (hopefully) no longer the news. Besides, now we can all question if she did what she did.

This lawyer is a manipulator.

It's shameful.

Have you ever been given a debate position you disagree with, but yet for the sake of what's learned through the process of a debate you gave that position all its due consideration, understanding and presentation? Whether you have or haven't, for those that do, they tend to understand things they never knew or ever would have considered.

Lawyers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully perform their professional duties of prosecuting or defending the accused, including protect the client’s constitutional rights and require the government to prove every element of the crime.

I do not have a judgement in this case because I haven't seen all the required evidence that a jury would see. But my understanding is the defense/defendant did not previously contest whether or not the defendant killed the children; that is not the same as testifying she did.

Perhaps through or after the initial trial some important info or realizations were learned by the defense, as certainly does happen historically. It's not shameful for the lawyers to do their required duties in this Constitutional process.

 

[HeIsHere]

Have you ever been given a debate position you disagree with, but yet for the sake of what's learned through the process of a debate you gave that position all its due consideration, understanding and presentation? Whether you have or haven't, for those that do, they tend to understand things they never knew or ever would have considered.

Lawyers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully perform their professional duties of prosecuting or defending the accused, including protect the client’s constitutional rights and require the government to prove every element of the crime.

I do not have a judgement in this case because I haven't seen all the required evidence that a jury would see. But my understanding is the defense/defendant did not previously contest whether or not the defendant killed the children; that is not the same as testifying she did.

Perhaps through or after the initial trial some important info or realizations were learned by the defense, as certainly does happen historically. It's not shameful for the lawyers to do their required duties in this Constitutional process.

She does not understand the law, how defense and prosecution work, nor this case itself, but then that never stops anyone from maintaining opinions.

 

[HeIsHere]

Have you ever been given a debate position you disagree with, but yet for the sake of what's learned through the process of a debate you gave that position all its due consideration, understanding and presentation? Whether you have or haven't, for those that do, they tend to understand things they never knew or ever would have considered.

Lawyers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully perform their professional duties of prosecuting or defending the accused, including protect the client’s constitutional rights and require the government to prove every element of the crime.

I do not have a judgement in this case because I haven't seen all the required evidence that a jury would see. But my understanding is the defense/defendant did not previously contest whether or not the defendant killed the children; that is not the same as testifying she did.

Perhaps through or after the initial trial some important info or realizations were learned by the defense, as certainly does happen historically. It's not shameful for the lawyers to do their required duties in this Constitutional process.

Also the judge denied a bi-bifurcated trial so her defense took the approach they thought would provide the best defense with the information at hand and with all the with the constraints imposed on them.

 

[JohnDB]

Have you ever been given a debate position you disagree with, but yet for the sake of what's learned through the process of a debate you gave that position all its due consideration, understanding and presentation? Whether you have or haven't, for those that do, they tend to understand things they never knew or ever would have considered.

Lawyers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully perform their professional duties of prosecuting or defending the accused, including protect the client’s constitutional rights and require the government to prove every element of the crime.

I do not have a judgement in this case because I haven't seen all the required evidence that a jury would see. But my understanding is the defense/defendant did not previously contest whether or not the defendant killed the children; that is not the same as testifying she did.

Perhaps through or after the initial trial some important info or realizations were learned by the defense, as certainly does happen historically. It's not shameful for the lawyers to do their required duties in this Constitutional process.

Where the problem exists is in the mental health of the mother, the absolute failure of the psychiatrist she was seeing, and the sleezey behavior, and inconsistent testimony of her ex husband.

Waking up from her injuries in the hospital of sliced wrists and sliced throat and broken back after a fall from a 2nd or 3rd floor window....still zoned out on psychotropic drugs they forced a confession from her....and in truth she had no clear memory of events. EX-Husband's testimony for his Alibi is a lie and proven to be so.

The prosecution also did not do a thorough investigation due to husband's friends on the police force.

So....
The whole of the case is based on her EX-husbands testimony and her own while she was too drugged up to know what had happened or was happening.
Psychotropic drugs remove willpower, memory, and cognitive functions.

 

[HeIsHere]

I think it is more than shameful, it is defamatory. It might be a criminal violation of the sixth amendment. Three of the jurors have publicly given interviews which could now be used in any trial (either to accuse the holdout juror of lying or to sue the lawyer for defaming him). In those interviews they made it clear the question was not about guilt, they knew she had murdered the three children viciously. The question was about whether or not she could tell right from wrong.

Now there was no evidence of her being psychotic prior to this event or since this event. So this question is even more narrow, was she able to tell right or wrong at the moment she was killing each of the three kids? One of the jurors in an interview said she saw this trial as an opportunity to raise the issue of post partum depression (lasting 8 months after your third child). So even though she could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay had a psychotic episode at the moment she was manipulating her husband to stay away while she killed the three children, she wanted it to be the case so they could start this conversation about post partum depression.

It seems to me this does raise an important issue when choosing a jury. Ask them "Do you intend to use this trial as a soap box to advance your personal agenda?"

The lawyer filed one motion, that is not hounding the hold out juror.
That was within his right to do, he has the right to pursue the legal means to defend his client.

 

[pinebeach]

Perhaps through or after the initial trial some important info or realizations were learned by the defense, as certainly does happen historically. It's not shameful for the lawyers to do their required duties in this Constitutional process.

or not

so outing the one juror and making sure he was being hounded is all fair
in love and war....er truth and facts?

See, we have a problem here. You are going after the shiny new thing.

I don't know who you think you are talking to, but it seems my opinion bothers you in some way. You are dong what the lawyer did.

smh

 

[HeIsHere]

Where the problem exists is in the mental health of the mother, the absolute failure of the psychiatrist she was seeing, and the sleezey behavior, and inconsistent testimony of her ex husband.

Waking up from her injuries in the hospital of sliced wrists and sliced throat and broken back after a fall from a 2nd or 3rd floor window....still zoned out on psychotropic drugs they forced a confession from her....and in truth she had no clear memory of events. EX-Husband's testimony for his Alibi is a lie and proven to be so.

The prosecution also did not do a thorough investigation due to husband's friends on the police force.

So....
The whole of the case is based on her EX-husbands testimony and her own while she was too drugged up to know what had happened or was happening.
Psychotropic drugs remove willpower, memory, and cognitive functions.

Well for once we agree.

 

[HeIsHere]

Where the problem exists is in the mental health of the mother, the absolute failure of the psychiatrist she was seeing, and the sleezey behavior, and inconsistent testimony of her ex husband.

Waking up from her injuries in the hospital of sliced wrists and sliced throat and broken back after a fall from a 2nd or 3rd floor window....still zoned out on psychotropic drugs they forced a confession from her....and in truth she had no clear memory of events. EX-Husband's testimony for his Alibi is a lie and proven to be so.

The prosecution also did not do a thorough investigation due to husband's friends on the police force.

So....
The whole of the case is based on her EX-husbands testimony and her own while she was too drugged up to know what had happened or was happening.
Psychotropic drugs remove willpower, memory, and cognitive functions.

Given the lack of forensic evidence and proper investigation the defense took the approach they thought would work,

he really did not have a choice once the Judge denied the request to separate the trials.

This is not legal analysis but just personal thinking, I do think she thought she had done it...but I think now, as she recovers she probably remembers more.

This is a complete miscarriage of justice.

 

[ScooterJackson]

This lawyer is a manipulator.

All lawyers are manipulators. It's what they are trained to do.

In those interviews they made it clear the question was not about guilt, they knew she had murdered the three children viciously. The question was about whether or not she could tell right from wrong.

The prosecution proved she knew right from wrong by showing how she planned to this these murders.
If a person truly does not know murder is wrong they would just doing it without planning it and waiting until their plan was in place.

she wanted it to be the case so they could start this conversation about post partum depression.

People been talking about postpartum depression for years already