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.
Bible_Locket said:
When someone says,because of this case, they have no appreciation for the jury system,and believe all women should be stripped of the right to vote,when driver's license and property records also are the source for empaneling jurors, you're not speaking to a rational person.


The foreperson in this case sent two notes to the judge.
The one hold out,and they know who it is, all seven days of deliberation,was a man.

He did not believe Ms.Clancy should be found guilty,but he wasn't going to follow the rules so to join the other 11 in making that final verdict.

Basically,he wanted to get famous and make news,while also throwing a monkey wrench into the process.
Click to expand...

No "informative" emoji to use anymore, that's annoying CC, plz bring it back.
Ok, I admit I have not been caught up in this trial. So this man didn't think she was guilty? I thought that was the whole issue. That he was holding out because he did believe she was guilty. But that's not the case?
 
ThereRoseaLamb said:
No "informative" emoji to use anymore, that's annoying CC, plz bring it back.
Ok, I admit I have not been caught up in this trial. So this man didn't think she was guilty? I thought that was the whole issue. That he was holding out because he did believe she was guilty. But that's not the case?
Click to expand...
In the Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial, the lone holdout juror refused to vote for an acquittal despite 11 other jurors favoring it, leading to a deadlocked jury and a mistrial.
    • Dispute Over the Law: The jury foreperson sent a note stating that the holdout juror acknowledged having doubts about the case, but refused to properly apply the judge's legal instructions regarding reasonable doubt.
    • The Defense View: Defense attorney Kevin Reddington claimed the male juror had a personal agenda or stubborn refusal to follow the court's rules on how to weigh lack of criminal responsibility due to postpartum psychosis.
    • The Official Finding: Judge William Sullivan declined to remove the juror, noting that the notes
    • showed a complicated internal disagreement rather than an outright refusal to obey the law, ultimately resulting in a hung jury.
      faviconV2
      YouTube +2
      Google
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
The trial hinged on "criminal responsibility"

Core Elements of Criminal Responsibility
To hold someone criminally responsible, the legal system must prove two main parts:
    • Actus Reus (The Physical Act): The person must voluntarily commit a prohibited action or fail to perform a legally required duty.
    • Mens Rea (The Mental State): The person must act with a culpable state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Factors That Negate Criminal Responsibility
The law recognizes that certain individuals cannot form the required intent or lack the capacity to understand their actions. These factors can excuse or reduce responsibility: [1, 2]
    • Severe Mental Illness or Insanity: If a mental disease prevents a person from understanding that their conduct is wrong or from conforming to the law, they may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. [1, 2]
    • Extreme Youth: Children under a certain legal age are presumed incapable of forming criminal intent and are handled through the juvenile justice or care systems rather than criminal court. [1, 2]
    • Duress: Being forced to commit an illegal act under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.
    • The reason this applied in this case is because she attempted suicide and was on medication for depression. So the question was "did her mental state prevent her from understanding that her conduct was wrong"? One juror had doubts that was the case. You are required to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. His doubt wasn't that she was guilty, it was that she was innocent. Previously to this murder of the three children she had never been diagnosed as being incapable of understanding right and wrong. So even though drugs had been prescribed no doctor had warned that she was incapable of understanding that murdering three children was wrong. In fact you could argue that attempting to commit suicide was an admission she knew it was wrong. Also, everyone knows that "claiming temporary insanity" is by far the best defense for a person who has admitted to murdering the three children. You can't claim she is "insane" because that would have been diagnosed earlier. So it was "temporary" which is also the best because it means you don't need to be locked up in an insane asylum for your whole life, just for a few months until the doctors can conclude the temporary insanity has worn off.
    • For example, Walter White in Breaking Bad claimed "temporary insanity" as a way to avoid the police connecting him to the killing of some drug lord and he was far more believable, having gone into a store and gotten naked and appearing to have been clueless about what was going on.

 
ZNP said:
The trial hinged on "criminal responsibility"

Core Elements of Criminal Responsibility
To hold someone criminally responsible, the legal system must prove two main parts:
    • Actus Reus (The Physical Act): The person must voluntarily commit a prohibited action or fail to perform a legally required duty.
    • Mens Rea (The Mental State): The person must act with a culpable state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Factors That Negate Criminal Responsibility
The law recognizes that certain individuals cannot form the required intent or lack the capacity to understand their actions. These factors can excuse or reduce responsibility: [1, 2]
    • Severe Mental Illness or Insanity: If a mental disease prevents a person from understanding that their conduct is wrong or from conforming to the law, they may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. [1, 2]
    • Extreme Youth: Children under a certain legal age are presumed incapable of forming criminal intent and are handled through the juvenile justice or care systems rather than criminal court. [1, 2]
    • Duress: Being forced to commit an illegal act under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.
    • The reason this applied in this case is because she attempted suicide and was on medication for depression. So the question was "did her mental state prevent her from understanding that her conduct was wrong"? One juror had doubts that was the case. You are required to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. His doubt wasn't that she was guilty, it was that she was innocent. Previously to this murder of the three children she had never been diagnosed as being incapable of understanding right and wrong. So even though drugs had been prescribed no doctor had warned that she was incapable of understanding that murdering three children was wrong. In fact you could argue that attempting to commit suicide was an admission she knew it was wrong. Also, everyone knows that "claiming temporary insanity" is by far the best defense for a person who has admitted to murdering the three children. You can't claim she is "insane" because that would have been diagnosed earlier. So it was "temporary" which is also the best because it means you don't need to be locked up in an insane asylum for your whole life, just for a few months until the doctors can conclude the temporary insanity has worn off.
    • For example, Walter White in Breaking Bad claimed "temporary insanity" as a way to avoid the police connecting him to the killing of some drug lord and he was far more believable, having gone into a store and gotten naked and appearing to have been clueless about what was going on.
Click to expand...
Also those who have pointed out that we should not assume that just because the holdout was a man that if there had been 12 women on the jury instead of 9 that a woman wouldn't have been the lone holdout. That is a valid point. Yes all 9 women on this jury and 2 men agreed to acquit her. But if you replaced the holdout with another woman there is no guarantee that she would go along with the crowd. Think about Erin Brockovich, she wasn't a pushover. Or how about Eleanor Roosevelt? She stood strong.
 
The judge in this case refused to replace the defiant juror with one of the 6 alternate jurors.

He could have done this because the juror did think there was reasonable doubt Ms.Clancy was guilty,but he refused to follow the law.
I have a feeling this issue isn't over. For that one juror or the judge.

We'll see.
 
Bible_Locket said:
When someone says,because of this case, they have no appreciation for the jury system,and believe all women should be stripped of the right to vote,when driver's license and property records also are the source for empaneling jurors, you're not speaking to a rational person.


The foreperson in this case sent two notes to the judge.
The one hold out,and they know who it is, all seven days of deliberation,was a man.

He did not believe Ms.Clancy should be found guilty,but he wasn't going to follow the rules so to join the other 11 in making that final verdict.

Basically,he wanted to get famous and make news,while also throwing a monkey wrench into the process.
Click to expand...
Poor little(DEAD) kids.......Blame a man.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lightbeamrider
I don't see any diversity here. It is all white folks. Upper middle class. Wonder if the jury was all white or if the lone male holdout was a black man who votes Democrat?
 
This is worth the read. For all you readers out there. You know who you are.

morganc000.substack.com

The Lindsay Clancy Psyop

If you still believe the mainstream media brings you entirely organic news, the televised circus surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case offers a revealing look behind the curtain.
morganc000.substack.com morganc000.substack.com

f you still believe the mainstream media brings you entirely organic news, the televised circus surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case offers a revealing look behind the curtain. Two weeks ago, I had never heard of this woman—and admit it, you didn’t know who she was either.

Suddenly, a three-year-old local tragedy is exhumed and blasted across every screen as a national referendum on motherhood and psychiatric expertise. This entire event looks like a textbook psychological operation, cooked up to manufacture public consent for state overreach, involuntary confinement, and a highly lucrative expansion of the psychiatric-pharma complex.

Which brings us directly to the star witness for the defense, “Dr. Paul Zeizel.”

The Spooks and Globalist Handlers in the Room​

Ollie North on the left
1788733558077.png
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...6a0-3923-4e50-895e-0722f178dc13_708x1536.jpeg
 
Kroogz said:
Poor little(DEAD) kids.......Blame a man.
Click to expand...

I'm sensing a bad turn here and I think we need to be careful. Women, as a whole, are being lumped together as supporting this Mother. I don't personally. She knew what she was doing, in my opinion, she knew it was wrong. That being said I see some men might start acting out assuming all women support her. I don't see any woman here that supports the murder of children.

I don't have children of my own. I do have a family member facing something similar and I am worried that a certain person may see this woman and the attention she is getting and act out. So maybe that's why I see this thing differently. Children are helpless and it's up to us to keep them safe, especially when we see red flags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen and pinebeach
ThereRoseaLamb said:
I'm sensing a bad turn here and I think we need to be careful. Women, as a whole, are being lumped together as supporting this Mother. I don't personally. She knew what she was doing, in my opinion, she knew it was wrong. That being said I see some men might start acting out assuming all women support her. I don't see any woman here that supports the murder of children.

I don't have children of my own. I do have a family member facing something similar and I am worried that a certain person may see this woman and the attention she is getting and act out. So maybe that's why I see this thing differently. Children are helpless and it's up to us to keep them safe, especially when we see red flags.
Click to expand...

Did you peruse the first 5 or so pages of this thread? The op cannot even bring himself to use the noun women. In his currency, we must remain 'female'

He sounds like one of those Ferengis on Star Trek who never used any reference but 'female(s)'

It might be a bit of a read to go back, but it won't be boring and will be revealing.


.......................................................................................1788735462163.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen and ThereRoseaLamb
pinebeach said:
Did you peruse the first 5 or so pages of this thread? The op cannot even bring himself to use the noun women. In his currency, we must remain 'female'

He sounds like one of those Ferengis on Star Trek who never used any reference but 'female(s)'

It might be a bit of a read to go back, but it won't be boring and will be revealing.


.......................................................................................View attachment 295308
Click to expand...

How about sisters in Christ? May I remind all that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't see where anyone here, women or female, who agrees with the murders of those three little ones. None of us agree with abortion, murder before or after birth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen and Bible_Locket
ThereRoseaLamb said:
I'm sensing a bad turn here and I think we need to be careful. Women, as a whole, are being lumped together as supporting this Mother. I don't personally. She knew what she was doing, in my opinion, she knew it was wrong. That being said I see some men might start acting out assuming all women support her. I don't see any woman here that supports the murder of children.

I don't have children of my own. I do have a family member facing something similar and I am worried that a certain person may see this woman and the attention she is getting and act out. So maybe that's why I see this thing differently. Children are helpless and it's up to us to keep them safe, especially when we see red flags.
Click to expand...
It's called Trolling.

Stories like this invite women haters to vent.

But have you noticed the tone of the animus?

Each one sound the same. And they're all inconvincible.

They insist women support the murder of children.

One wants the 19th amendment repealed.

Thinking that will teach us for not following the law in this case.
But they did. Nine women and two men,did.

Ms.Clancy was legally entitled to a jury of her peers,and she got that.

Now because nine women and two men followed the law,all women agree with killing children.

It's Troling. Mysoginistic Trolling.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb and CarriePie
pinebeach said:
Did you peruse the first 5 or so pages of this thread? The op cannot even bring himself to use the noun women.
Click to expand...
News to me. Why can't i use woman or women?
pinebeach said:
In his currency, we must remain 'female'
Click to expand...
You must? Am i getting free rent in your head? I am not sure if i like that. :oops: :ROFL:
pinebeach said:
He sounds like one of those Ferengis on Star Trek who never used any reference but 'female(s)'
Click to expand...
Why don't you take your own inventory instead of mine? You can do something about that.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (Like other people)
Courage to change the things i can. (Like myself)
And the wisdom to know the difference.
pinebeach said:
It might be a bit of a read to go back, but it won't be boring and will be revealing.
Click to expand...
I think i might have screwed up one post to you. Other than that, I have no control over what you think or how you perceive things. Right now I am more interested in the psychologist Zeizel who happens to be a man with an interesting past.
pinebeach said:
.......................................................................................View attachment 295308
Click to expand...
 
Lightbeamrider said:
You are the one who blamed the husband. (n) Worry about your own problems.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem.
You do.Your contpt for women,even hatred,was displayed by you early on with your comment about women and marriage.

The husband in this case is absolutely responsible for not being there for his wife and children.
He worked from home. He was there on a constant basis.

Lindsay's children, Cora 5, Dawson 3, and Callan 8 months.

Post Partum Depression can last for months or even years.
Consider the ages of her children and then the nine to ten months pregnancy period for each one.

After delivery,pregnancy hormones will slowly dissipate taking anywhere from a few months to a few years.
Breast feeding alters that time frame.
So too does repeatedly getting pregnant .
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarriePie
Lightbeamrider said:
Looks like a test case for future relationships. Would you continue a relationship with a female who supported Lindsey's mental Illness claim for a psychiatric hospital stay as opposed to prison? Double Standard? Do women generally get off lightly when committing horrible crimes?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2093363236036919583
Click to expand...
... good for him, his future kids will live.

also she wasn't diagnosed with anything severe like what is being claimed. and had a lot of help and support. I think we should be sympathetic that she may have had some struggles sure. But that woman killed her children. And she admited to doing it, she needs to go to jail especially since she was not diagnosed with any psychosis.

That one man on the jury holding things up, GOD BLESS HIM.

I just saw today there was a copy cat murder of a mother who was obsessed with the case and hung her child who she thought was the anti Christ ... until this woman is deemed guilty there will be more copy cats 100%

I find it really sad that like it is controversial to say the truth, this woman who claims herself that she is guilty of this murder. like what the heck?!

But I also remember so many people who are women in control and good mothers often normalized calling their children little monsters that drive them insane, and insulting them their children in order to cope while giving them food or kisses ... I think subtle abuse of your children has always been tolerated. And i think embrasing intrusive thoughts or accepting them has always been encouraged. becuase there are a lot of mothers who say they wish they could kill their children or throw them out the window, but having thoughts like that especially frequently is NOT NORMAL. And I don't understand when it became normal?

I saw a whole scene in i thing Chicago md (a show) and it was supposed to be uplifting, saying it is normal for you to want to kill your kid when they are crying for too long, and then proceeded to tell this woman who put herself in the hospital because she felt like she was a harm to her child, to basically go home,and she was okay. (this episod came out years ago)

Like legit, if you as a christan man or I guess a woman as well. if your partner or spouse sympathized with Lindsay clancy ... would you stay with them? I would not stay with a man who went to say "well she was hormonal and that isn't her fault,"
 
  • Pray
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb and Lightbeamrider
Sadly,what is ignored by some here is that Lindsay Clancy tried to kill herself after she killed her children. She slit her throat and cut both wrists. Then,jumped head first out of her homes second story window.
She is now paralyzed from the waist down.

Not the act of a stable mind.

Via DuckDuckGo AI
Reported or argued diagnoses in Lindsay Clancy’s case include:

  • Postpartum psychosis — her defense argued that she was experiencing this condition when her children died. Reports also state that she was never formally diagnosed with postpartum psychosis at the time. PBS1
  • Bipolar disorder — her defense reportedly argued that she had previously undiagnosed bipolar disorder or bipolar-spectrum illness. Yahoo
  • Postpartum depression, anxiety, or OCD — these conditions have been discussed in coverage of her symptoms and differential diagnosis, but they should not be treated as confirmed diagnoses unless supported by medical or court records. PBS2
The prosecution’s experts reportedly disputed the defense’s diagnosis and conclusions about her mental state. Thus, the most accurate wording is that postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder were defense theories or reported possibilities, not universally established diagnoses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back