Modern Relationships and Lindsey Clancy Case. 3 Children Strangled. Overwhelming Support From Females and Male Backlash.
- Thread starter Lightbeamrider
- Start date
-
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.
Well, let's hope not. Watching Patrick Clancy on the stand he had a strange demeanor even though there was no evidence of deception.
Now if he had said anything to support the idea that his wife was psychotic or wasn't criminally responsible, that would have been the perfect time for him to say that. But he didn't.
The deception expert breaking down the video did not see any sign of deception on his part but at the same time he acknowledged the strange demeanor.
I would suggest you go back and watch that video carefully from the perspective of a husband that knows his wife is a liar and doesn't want to say anything. He isn't going to lie, but at the same time he does not want to be on the stand because he knows his wife is a liar. See if that doesn't make his demeanor seem much more relatable.
Yes, but she was pleading not guilty because she was incapable of being criminally responsible. Just because she is not "criminally responsible" does not change the fact that she is a murderer. It is hypocrisy to plead that you were not criminally responsible for your actions in murdering three children and still argue that you did not confess to murdering the children.
She pled that she was not criminally responsible for murdering three children. Enough with this baloney arguement that we still need to convict her of murder, she pled that she murdered the three children while in a state that is not criminally responsible.
The woman has not denied that she murdered her children.
They have DNA evidence that she choked her kids out causing them to die.
Exactly. She won't be escaping the judgement of the Lord which sends all murderers to hell.
Actually the blood of Jesus can wash away the sins of lying and murder. Now is the time for her to repent. Who knows, if she repents perhaps the Lord will heal her memory.
By asking for a bifurcated trial, the defense was absolutely trying to get the best of both worlds. Your breakdown of the legal mechanics is spot-on, and looking at how both approaches work side-by-side illustrates why the judge stepped in to stop it: [1]
The "Have Your Cake and Eat It Too" Strategy
If Judge Sullivan had granted a bifurcated trial, Lindsay Clancy's defense team would have been allowed to argue two entirely contradictory positions without any consequences: [1]
By forcing a single trial, the judge eliminated this safety net. In a unified trial, a defense attorney cannot stand in front of a jury and say, "She didn't do it, but if she did, she was insane." Doing so destroys all credibility with the jury. [1, 2]
The Reality of the Insanity Defense (Conceding the Act)
A Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) defense inherently concedes that the defendant committed the physical act. [1, 2]
In Massachusetts, under the McHoul standard, the defense essentially says: "Yes, the physical acts occurred, but because of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform her conduct to the law." [1]
It is not a "get out of jail free" card:
Judge Sullivan denied the request because allowing a bifurcated trial would force the state to run two resource-heavy trials back-to-back using the exact same evidence. The timeline, her actions, her phone calls, and her mental state are all completely intertwined. [1, 2]
Because the judge refused to split the trial, the defense was forced to put all their chips on the postpartum psychosis argument during the actual six-week trial. The fact that her attorney went right back to arguing "she didn't physically do it" immediately after the mistrial shows just how hard the defense is fighting to resurrect that two-step strategy now that the first trial is over.
The "Have Your Cake and Eat It Too" Strategy
If Judge Sullivan had granted a bifurcated trial, Lindsay Clancy's defense team would have been allowed to argue two entirely contradictory positions without any consequences: [1]
| Phase | Defense Position | What They Gain |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Guilt | "The state can't prove she physically did this. There are no direct witnesses or signed confessions." | A Total Walk: If the jury buys it, she is acquitted right here. She goes home a completely free woman. |
| Phase 2: Sanity | "Okay, if you decide she did do it, she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and wasn't criminally responsible." | A Safety Net: If Phase 1 fails, they immediately pivot to the insanity defense. If they win here, she goes to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. |
The Reality of the Insanity Defense (Conceding the Act)
A Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) defense inherently concedes that the defendant committed the physical act. [1, 2]
In Massachusetts, under the McHoul standard, the defense essentially says: "Yes, the physical acts occurred, but because of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform her conduct to the law." [1]
It is not a "get out of jail free" card:
- The Outcome of an Insanity Verdict: If the jury had unanimously agreed on an insanity verdict, Clancy wouldn't have been released. She would have been committed to a secure state psychiatric facility (like Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital). These commitments are reviewed periodically, but they can legally last for the rest of a person's life. [1]
- The Outcome of a Standard Conviction: Had she been found guilty in a standard capacity, she faced mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. [1]
Judge Sullivan denied the request because allowing a bifurcated trial would force the state to run two resource-heavy trials back-to-back using the exact same evidence. The timeline, her actions, her phone calls, and her mental state are all completely intertwined. [1, 2]
Because the judge refused to split the trial, the defense was forced to put all their chips on the postpartum psychosis argument during the actual six-week trial. The fact that her attorney went right back to arguing "she didn't physically do it" immediately after the mistrial shows just how hard the defense is fighting to resurrect that two-step strategy now that the first trial is over.
John Hinkley Jr. was found not guilty by reason of insanity when he shot Reagan and two other people. That is a good case to compare with this one to see what kind of erratic behavior and psychotic behavior appeared in Hinkley prior to the shooting event.
No, you don't get to plead that you were not responsible for killing the three children because of a break with reality and still get to claim that you didn't murder the three children. She could have pled not guilty, she didn't, she pled "not responsible".
I am not going to judge, however, I think it is informative when you see there was a mountain of corroborating evidence that this guy was psychotic compared to the total lack of evidence with Lindsay Clancy.
It is about your rhetoric it is wrong, there was a mistrial and her entered plea was not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
It amazes me how inconsistent you are, you go on and about the need for the court to decide and slander when it comes to geopolitics and other issues and how we cannot judge and here you are, thinking you can change the language its meaning when it suits you.
She made plans to murder her children and is now she's trying to not be punished for murder.