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

[JohnDB]

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.

The Ex husband has really skated by up to this point because he threw a couple hundred dollars at her Lawyer Redington and bought his silence until ex-hubby refused to continue paying retainer.....(Which can get really expensive in a hurry for guilty clients....just ask my ex wife about why she was constantly changing attorneys....ha ha ha.)
Lying to the press is one thing.....lying before the judge in court is another.....and retainers do not cover one of the two.

But honestly the prosecution was asleep at the wheel and got railroaded by Redington....even an average attorney could have won this one. But with a huge ego maniac like Redington? Fuhgetaboutit.....

 

[JohnDB]

Well for once we agree.

It is kinda scary isn't it?

 

[Sculpt]

He accused that juror or lying and contributed to his being doxed. That should fulfill the requirements for a civil suit. Whether or not he wins would be up to the trial.

The defense lawyer petitioned the judge to replace the juror with one of the backups for the reason that, based on jury deliberation notes he asserted the juror had lied under oath during jury selection; and that he was refusing to follow the law regarding the definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

When a jury note explicitly alleges that a juror is refusing to follow the law or the court's explicit instructions, it is standard legal procedure for an attorney to raise an objection and move for a mistrial or a juror's replacement. As you know, in our 'adversarial legal system', defense attorneys have a constitutional duty to zealously advocate for their client.

Also, that one juror cannot sue the defense lawyer for accusing him of lying. Our US judicial system has 'absolute litigation privilege' which provides unconditional immunity from civil lawsuits for statements made during court proceedings.

The juror, lawyers or country prosecutors can however seek a gag order or make a complaint to the bar.

I'll note again... I'm not asserting L Clancy is guilty or innocent of anything. I'd just like to remind people the D lawyer is doing what he's required to do, these are our Constitutional rights and protections and the way our adversarial legal system is meant to work.

 

[JohnDB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2105102351518310894

 

[ZNP]

The defense lawyer petitioned the judge to replace the juror with one of the backups for the reason that, based on jury deliberation notes he asserted the juror had lied under oath during jury selection; and that he was refusing to follow the law regarding the definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

When a jury note explicitly alleges that a juror is refusing to follow the law or the court's explicit instructions, it is standard legal procedure for an attorney to raise an objection and move for a mistrial or a juror's replacement. As you know, in our 'adversarial legal system', defense attorneys have a constitutional duty to zealously advocate for their client.

Also, that one juror cannot sue the defense lawyer for accusing him of lying. Our US judicial system has 'absolute litigation privilege' which provides unconditional immunity from civil lawsuits for statements made during court proceedings.

The juror, lawyers or country prosecutors can however seek a gag order or make a complaint to the bar.

I'll note again... I'm not asserting L Clancy is guilty or innocent of anything. I'd just like to remind people the D lawyer is doing what he's required to do, these are our Constitutional rights and protections and the way our adversarial legal system is meant to work.

Well they have a huge problem then because doxing jurors is going to completely undo the legal system we have and make it mob rule.

 

[Sculpt]

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

I respect your opinion and views on the case. I do not approve of the defense lawyer's comments to the press about the one juror. In my opinion, he probably made mistakes out of frustration... Could he have been trying to influence the public just in case there was a new trial? Possibly. I can't read his mind.

But regarding the D lawyer petitioning the judge about the one juror's statements during the jury selection and assertions juror was not following the law & courts instructions, that is usual in these cases and he's doing what he is duty/oath-bound to do. I'm not saying you did... but I don't see how it's beneficial for anyone to complain about that.

 

[ZNP]

I respect your opinion and views on the case. I do not approve of the defense lawyer's comments to the press about the one juror. In my opinion, he probably made mistakes out of frustration... Could he have been trying to influence the public just in case there was a new trial? Possibly. I can't read his mind.

But regarding the D lawyer petitioning the judge about the one juror's statements during the jury selection and assertions juror was not following the law & courts instructions, that is usual in these cases and he's doing what he is duty/oath-bound to do. I'm not saying you did... but I don't see how it's beneficial for anyone to complain about that.

No one complained about that. What they complained about was his being doxed. If that is not illegal that is a major issue for the legal system, and if it is illegal it should be the basis for a civil suit.

 

[ScooterJackson]

He accused that juror or lying and contributed to his being doxed. That should fulfill the requirements for a civil suit. Whether or not he wins would be up to the trial.

That should lead to that lawyer being disbarred.

 

[ZNP]

Prosecutors Demand GAG ORDER on Clancy Defense Lawyer Reddington!

 

[ZNP]

“Robbed by One Man”: Bar Complaint Against Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer

 

[ZNP]

Just to be clear, the gag order and the bar complaint on Linsay's lawyer are not based on a motion he made in court but his behavior on talk shows, interviews and press conferences. So the protection this lawyer has against lawsuits for what he says in court may not protect him for what he says on radio, TV and the internet.

 

[HeIsHere]

No one complained about that. What they complained about was his being doxed. If that is not illegal that is a major issue for the legal system, and if it is illegal it should be the basis for a civil suit.

But you are fine with not following due process or the presumption of innocence ...of course that is not equally applied, seems from your posts it depends on who is the person or the country.

Some can be judged others not so much.

 

[ZNP]

But you are fine with not following due process or the presumption of innocence ...of course that is not equally applied, seems from your posts it depends on who is the person or the country.

Some can be judged others not so much.

Of course I support the presumption of innocence, but she wasn't pleading "not guilty" she was pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" and conceded that she had murdered the three children.

So it is ridiculous in that situation to presume she was innocent of murdering the children. That was not the question that jurors were answering, the question they had before them was whether or not she knew the difference between right and wrong while manipulating her husband to keep him out of the house and then bringing the children down to the basement to kill them one at a time.

 

[HeIsHere]

Of course I support the presumption of innocence, but she wasn't pleading "not guilty" she was pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" and conceded that she had murdered the three children.

So it is ridiculous in that situation to presume she was innocent of murdering the children. That was not the question that jurors were answering, the question they had before them was whether or not she knew the difference between right and wrong while manipulating her husband to keep him out of the house and then bringing the children down to the basement to kill them one at a time.

She was pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity."
You have no background in psychology so I cannot place value on your biased uninformed opinion.

 

[pinebeach]

Obviously you as well do not know the case.

According to who do people who do not reach the same conclusion as you not know the case?

It is all over the net, all over podcasts and all over the news. So somehow, those who think Clancy is not guilty are the only ones
able to reach any sort of viable conclusion on the case?

There is no obviously.

 

[ScooterJackson]

But you are fine with not following due process or the presumption of innocence

The hold out juror heard all the evidence and was not convince she was innocent and so he voted his conscience which is his right to do.

You have no background in psychology so I cannot place value on your biased uninformed opinion.

That was her plea!
No background in psychology needed to understand her plea which was made public

those who think Clancy is not guilty are the only ones
able to reach any sort of viable conclusion on the case?

That's exactly what the woke liberal mob mentality dictates that all should embrace

 

[pinebeach]

I respect your opinion and views on the case. I do not approve of the defense lawyer's comments to the press about the one juror. In my opinion, he probably made mistakes out of frustration... Could he have been trying to influence the public just in case there was a new trial? Possibly. I can't read his mind.

But regarding the D lawyer petitioning the judge about the one juror's statements during the jury selection and assertions juror was not following the law & courts instructions, that is usual in these cases and he's doing what he is duty/oath-bound to do. I'm not saying you did... but I don't see how it's beneficial for anyone to complain about that.

No you don't. You have an opinion and have a put a mask of I am just like Switzerland on it and have dressed it up without the good choclate.

I'm not taking you seriously and the defense should be held in contempt. Hecreate the false offering of 'no proper investigation was held. Where is the proof she killed her children?'

As it is, where do you try to make it seem I have not done my own due diligence?

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,

Do you work for the legal team of Clancy? Kindly stop trying to get a foot in the door here. It's locked.

 

[ZNP]

She was pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity."
You have no background in psychology so I cannot place value on your biased uninformed opinion.

I don't have any opinion about how the jury should have decided in this case. But I do have an opinion when a juror is interviewed and doxes another juror with whom she disagreed and I do have an opinion on a juror saying she thought this trial would be a great way to start the conversation about post partum. Having an agenda as a juror is precisely what the Defense attorney was accusing the holdout of having but it turns out it was at least one of the women jurors had.

Also I have pointed out that in this type of trial the burden of proof is on the prosecutor in Mass. and in Illinois it is on the Defense. My point in bring that out is it you understand the concept of "unbiased" these two criteria should not introduce any undo burden or bias. For example, it is impossible for me to be 100% certain of Lindsay's state of mind at the time of her killing the children. So if you were to take the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to an absurd max it would mean that no one in Illinois would ever be found not guilty by reason of insanity while in Mass. everyone who made this claim would have to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. So that is an absurd understanding of "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is reasonable to ask if someone is using this defense to escape prosecution. It is also reasonable to ask if she had ever been diagnosed as psychotic.

 

[pinebeach]

Of course I support the presumption of innocence, but she wasn't pleading "not guilty" she was pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" and conceded that she had murdered the three children.

So it is ridiculous in that situation to presume she was innocent of murdering the children. That was not the question that jurors were answering, the question they had before them was whether or not she knew the difference between right and wrong while manipulating her husband to keep him out of the house and then bringing the children down to the basement to kill them one at a time.

Why can't you just be more agreeable to the possibility we are all going to have some form of amnesia?

The way the Clancy lovefest is manifesting here, grasping at straws and assuming those who do not think her to be innocent are ignoring the facts, would be downright funny if they were not trying to present some sort of believable alternative to the actual facts of the case.

I do believe they could make a case for the tooth fairy and convince themselves of the existence of the same.

 

[HeIsHere]

It is also reasonable to ask if she had ever been diagnosed as psychotic.

Sigh.

A person is diagnosed with a specific "psychotic disorder."

Psychosis is a symptom and it is not diagnosed prior to it happening.

This post along with your horrible post about prison being able to meet her physical condition tells me that you have an emotional viewpoint not a rational, evidence based, deduced view point.

Do better.

OK, it never happened prior to her sending her husband out on errands while killing her children one by one in the basement so that their deaths would not scare the others, and it has never happened since. Also when she realized her husband might get home before her "psychotic episode" ended she sent him on another errand. So even though she "did not realize what she was doing was wrong" she also realized she had to get him out of the house to do it.