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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
ZNP said:
In Massachusetts law, to raise a reasonable doubt regarding a defendant's criminal responsibility, the defense must first proffer "some evidence" of a mental disease or defect. Once this threshold is met, the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution (the Commonwealth). To secure a conviction, the prosecution must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Under the foundational McHoul standard (Commonwealth v. McHoul), a jury will have reasonable doubt if the prosecution fails to disprove either prong of the definition of legal insanity. This framework operates as follows: [1, 2, 3]

1. The Threshold: "Some Evidence"
The defendant does not carry the burden of proving they were insane. Under Commonwealth v. Lawson, the defense only needs to present enough preliminary evidence that—when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant—would allow a reasonable finder of fact to doubt their sanity. This can include witness testimony, medical history, or the sheer bizarre circumstances of the offense. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Once this evidence is introduced, the legal "presumption of sanity" is destroyed; the state cannot rely on the basic assumption that "most people are sane" to win the argument. [1, 2]

2. The McHoul Test Metrics
A jury must find the defendant not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility if there is a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the crime, a mental disease or defect caused them to lack substantial capacity to: [1, 2]
  • Appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct (Cognitive Prong): The defendant was unable to truly understand or realize that what they were doing was criminally or morally wrong. [1, 2]
  • Conform their conduct to the requirements of the law (Volitional Prong): Even if the defendant knew the act was wrong, their mental illness stripped them of the ability or self-control to stop themselves from doing it. [1, 2]

How the Prosecution Fails (Resulting in Acquittal)
A reasonable doubt is legally sustained if the prosecution fails to prove either of the following: [1, 2]
  1. That the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the exact time of the offense.
  2. That even if they did have a mental illness, they still retained the substantial capacity to both understand the law and control their actions. [1, 2]

1. They brought in her doctors all of which said she was not suffering from psychotic breaks.

2. Manipulating her husband to be away while she killed the kids and killing them one at a time in the basement is evidence that she both understood what she was doing was wrong and that she had the capacity to control her actions.

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, what matters is what the 12 jurors thought and there was a very clear basis to feel the Prosecution had reached the threshhold for reasonable doubt.

Once again, my issues are with:

1. Women outside cheering for a murderer.

2. Doxing a juror

3. Jurors admitting in interviews that they had a private agenda with this trial besides simply determining if the woman was guilty or not.
Click to expand...

Actually the issue is the forensic evidence not the mental health evidence.
 
ZNP said:
Well obviously. Hillary Clinton is gone, they need a new champion to support killing babies.
Click to expand...
though to be fair Lindsay doesn't cackle like Kamala. That is something that can be said for her.
 
  • Haha
Reactions:HeIsHere

How is that funny?

First off you argue she was mentally unstable and did not know what she was doing

Next, it's maybe the husband or someone else did it with emphasis on the husband

Then it was you cannot prove she killed the children...where is the proof?

So the judge, who has both feet on the ground and is examining the facts, tells the lawyer who should go work for disney,
that there will be no dismissal...the madame is not free to go.

So now we just gonna ha ha ha our way through whatever happens next?

And by the way, she did admit to killing the children. And that is not funny.
 
mob mentality is right....but that would be on the switch the verdict and find little miss innocent, innocent even if there is a
video of her murdering the children...there might be but not on this earth.

mob mentality....the pink princess poodles outside the courtroom who apparently think children are not human until they can fight back and punch out the monster coming at them with an ax, or an instrument to chop them into pieces in the womb or some implement designed for another purpose used to choke the life out of them.

The baby's brain was pushed beyond the skull the choke on him was so severe...and he lived another 3 days. Prob would have been
a vegetable if he had lived what with his brain dislodged from it's skull.

Oh yes that is all so funny.

I think you must not know what you are on about.

Yes. She heard a voice. Her own and she would do it again.
 
pinebeach said:
mob mentality is right....but that would be on the switch the verdict and find little miss innocent, innocent even if there is a
video of her murdering the children...there might be but not on this earth.

mob mentality....the pink princess poodles outside the courtroom who apparently think children are not human until they can fight back and punch out the monster coming at them with an ax, or an instrument to chop them into pieces in the womb or some implement designed for another purpose used to choke the life out of them.

The baby's brain was pushed beyond the skull the choke on him was so severe...and he lived another 3 days. Prob would have been
a vegetable if he had lived what with his brain dislodged from it's skull.

Oh yes that is all so funny.

I think you must not know what you are on about.

Yes. She heard a voice. Her own and she would do it again.
Click to expand...
On that link I posted one of the women on the view said that 'she had to be insane to do what she did' indicating that the proof that she wasn't criminally accountable was the act itself. I wonder if she would say the same thing about a man who had killed his three kids, or a rapist, or a serial killer.
 
ZNP said:
On that link I posted one of the women on the view said that 'she had to be insane to do what she did' indicating that the proof that she wasn't criminally accountable was the act itself. I wonder if she would say the same thing about a man who had killed his three kids, or a rapist, or a serial killer.
Click to expand...
I don't know and I'm not sure why we have to go there?
 
pinebeach said:
  • Haha
Reactions:HeIsHere

How is that funny?

First off you argue she was mentally unstable and did not know what she was doing

Next, it's maybe the husband or someone else did it with emphasis on the husband

Then it was you cannot prove she killed the children...where is the proof?

So the judge, who has both feet on the ground and is examining the facts, tells the lawyer who should go work for disney,
that there will be no dismissal...the madame is not free to go.

So now we just gonna ha ha ha our way through whatever happens next?

And by the way, she did admit to killing the children. And that is not funny.
Click to expand...


My goodness .. the prosecution's case does not even need the admission of guilt.
 
pinebeach said:
mob mentality is right....but that would be on the switch the verdict and find little miss innocent, innocent even if there is a
video of her murdering the children...there might be but not on this earth.

mob mentality....the pink princess poodles outside the courtroom who apparently think children are not human until they can fight back and punch out the monster coming at them with an ax, or an instrument to chop them into pieces in the womb or some implement designed for another purpose used to choke the life out of them.

The baby's brain was pushed beyond the skull the choke on him was so severe...and he lived another 3 days. Prob would have been
a vegetable if he had lived what with his brain dislodged from it's skull.

Oh yes that is all so funny.

I think you must not know what you are on about.

Yes. She heard a voice. Her own and she would do it again.
Click to expand...

Please never serve on the jury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back