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

ZNP said:

Good point. It turns out this whole "one lone holdout" has left out important information that there were four who thought she was guilty but when it became clear the 8 who were voting "innocent" were adamant and weren't changing three of them capitulated. So their anger at the fourth person not explaining himself was after very long and tedious and fruitless attempts at presenting a case for saying she was guilty.

WOW! "The Standalone Juror Was Not The Only One"​

Click to expand...

They described deliberations as being so heated that they were yelling at each other. I find that extremely weird. On the one hand the decision is based on them deciding if she could determine right from wrong. I can see someone saying she could and I can see someone saying they thought she couldn't. But let's be real, neither of you can really know for sure and the idea that this means "there is doubt, hence she must be innocent" is idiotic. The court cannot be asking you to do the impossible and if you can't then the defendant is innocent, such an interpretation is idiotic. No, they are asking you to do something that is very difficult to the best of your ability. You would have to enter this process unbiased meaning you have a 50/50 chance of voting either way. Then you weigh the evidence. On the one hand we have evidence that she couldn't discern right from wrong, maybe ten or fifteen years of psychiatrists diagnosing her with this, a period of time in an insane asylum, a history of very odd behavior, etc. On the other hand you have the evidence that this was planned, methodical, and she had operated in a way to make sure those who would try to stop her were not there. You decide which side of the scales has moved more and then you vote. You don't change your vote because you are in the minority. You change your vote because someone points out evidence you hadn't considered and when you add that to the scales it changes your view.

I think the left will literally implode! I’m not even kidding.

Turns out the LONE holdout juror was not only a MAN, but the ONLY black or minority on the panel!

May God greatly bless this honorable man!,

JohnDB said:

Well....people who wished for teenage pregnancies to stop got their wish....
No teenage pregnancies and no teenage abortions either.

Young people are not engaging in any sort of romantic relationships whatsoever....

HUGE PROBLEM!

People do not know the benefits of having a permanent relationship far outweigh the potential risks....
All they see is the risks and detriments when following their biological imperatives.

My almost 30 y.o. SIL had one requirement for dating boys when in high school....they had to be able to hold a conversation. That's it....if they could do that she would go out with them. (She was a lil hottie back then too) she did not go on any dates.

Theres a huge relationship crisis between people....we do NOT know how to have relationships with the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

True. Especially am8d those who think of marriage in terms of, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Immature minds develop with age,ideally. But not always.

One thing about news of this nature,it challenges those who identify as in Christ to prove it.
Many fail there too.

ZNP said:

No there are four types.

Those who are written in the book of Life, those who are not written in the book of life, and those who are still undecided and could go either way.

Click to expand...

Bad at maths.

There's ever only 2.

Bible_Locket said:

Bad at maths.

There's ever only 2.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was the joke.

I think one of the things that has not been mentioned so far in this thread is the struggles that Lindsay Clansy had, both financially and with all the work she had to do.

Her husbands job paid around 400k a year, so you can already see the kind of financial strain they were in, she did work as a part time nurse after the children were born but had taken a 18 week leave after the third child. But she got almost no help with the three children other than the part time nanny and of course her husband worked from home so that too. The nanny basically was there for childcare but also did some laundry, food prep and housekeeping.

The hold out juror should be investigated.

ZNP said:

I think one of the things that has not been mentioned so far in this thread is the struggles that Lindsay Clansy had, both financially and with all the work she had to do.

Her husbands job paid around 400k a year, so you can already see the kind of financial strain they were in, she did work as a part time nurse after the children were born but had taken a 18 week leave after the third child. But she got almost no help with the three children other than the part time nanny and of course her husband worked from home so that too. The nanny basically was there for childcare but also did some laundry, food prep and housekeeping.

Click to expand...

Not relevant.

HeIsHere said:

Not relevant.

Click to expand...

In a criminal trial where a defendant claims temporary insanity, their personal struggles and financial difficulties are highly relevant because they provide crucial context regarding the defendant's mental state at the exact time of the crime.
To prove temporary insanity, the defense must usually show that a severe mental disease or defect left the defendant unable to understand the nature of their actions or tell right from wrong during the offense.
Here is how personal and financial hardships factor into building that legal argument:

1. Identifying the "Triggering Event"
Temporary insanity implies that the mental break was not a permanent condition, but a sudden, acute episode. Defense attorneys often use a severe accumulation of life stressors—such as bankruptcy, foreclosure, sudden job loss, or a bitter divorce—as the catalyst or "trigger" that pushed the defendant over the edge, causing them to completely lose touch with reality.

2. Establishing a Mental Health Diagnosis
Financial and personal crises frequently lead to severe, underlying psychiatric conditions. Defense experts (like forensic psychologists or psychiatrists) analyze these life struggles to diagnose conditions such as:

• Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features
• Acute Stress Disorder
• Severe trauma or nervous breakdowns

The hardships explain why the defendant developed the underlying mental defect required by law to mount an insanity defense.

3. Disproving Premeditation and Intent
For serious crimes, the prosecution must prove "mens rea" (a guilty mind) and premeditation. Personal and financial struggles help the jury understand the difference between a calculated, cold-blooded plan and a spontaneous, erratic act driven by overwhelming emotional and cognitive collapse. It refutes the idea that the person was acting with rational, malicious intent.

4. Explaining "Irrational" Behavior
If a person is facing financial ruin and commits a crime that makes no logical sense—or doesn't actually solve their financial problem—their struggles help highlight how detached from reality they were. The defense can argue that a rational person trying to solve a financial problem would act logically, whereas the defendant's bizarre actions prove they were suffering from a complete mental break.

---

ZNP said:

In a criminal trial where a defendant claims temporary insanity, their personal struggles and financial difficulties are highly relevant because they provide crucial context regarding the defendant's mental state at the exact time of the crime.
To prove temporary insanity, the defense must usually show that a severe mental disease or defect left the defendant unable to understand the nature of their actions or tell right from wrong during the offense.
Here is how personal and financial hardships factor into building that legal argument:

1. Identifying the "Triggering Event"
Temporary insanity implies that the mental break was not a permanent condition, but a sudden, acute episode. Defense attorneys often use a severe accumulation of life stressors—such as bankruptcy, foreclosure, sudden job loss, or a bitter divorce—as the catalyst or "trigger" that pushed the defendant over the edge, causing them to completely lose touch with reality.

2. Establishing a Mental Health Diagnosis
Financial and personal crises frequently lead to severe, underlying psychiatric conditions. Defense experts (like forensic psychologists or psychiatrists) analyze these life struggles to diagnose conditions such as:

• Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features
• Acute Stress Disorder
• Severe trauma or nervous breakdowns

The hardships explain why the defendant developed the underlying mental defect required by law to mount an insanity defense.

3. Disproving Premeditation and Intent
For serious crimes, the prosecution must prove "mens rea" (a guilty mind) and premeditation. Personal and financial struggles help the jury understand the difference between a calculated, cold-blooded plan and a spontaneous, erratic act driven by overwhelming emotional and cognitive collapse. It refutes the idea that the person was acting with rational, malicious intent.

4. Explaining "Irrational" Behavior
If a person is facing financial ruin and commits a crime that makes no logical sense—or doesn't actually solve their financial problem—their struggles help highlight how detached from reality they were. The defense can argue that a rational person trying to solve a financial problem would act logically, whereas the defendant's bizarre actions prove they were suffering from a complete mental break.

---

Click to expand...

Exactly why it is not relevant.

HeIsHere said:

The hold out juror should be investigated.

Click to expand...

Oh yes that honorable man, the one who used the actual cord on a water bottle during deliberations, was reported to be often scrolling on his phone, the one who had his mind made up from the start.

Well look what they have found on him.......

"According to NBC10 Boston, the unidentified man was charged in 2021 after his then-13-year-old nephew called 911 and alleged that his uncle grabbed his wife by the throat and threw her into a dresser. The charge was later dismissed after his wife declined to pursue the case.
The same nephew later accused the man of repeatedly punching him and obtained a restraining order against him. That order reportedly remained active during the Clancy trial.
The revelation is drawing added scrutiny because this was the juror who stood alone during deliberations."

Link

HeIsHere said:

Exactly why it is not relevant.

Click to expand...

It is relevant if you are trying to determine whether or not she was not guilty on the basis of insanity.

ZNP said:

It is relevant if you are trying to determine whether or not she was not guilty on the basis of insanity.

Click to expand...

What is relevant is the failure of the Medical Industrial Complex of Psychiatry for someone was actively seeking help, whose husband affirmed she was getting worse and not better, where even the hospital confirmed it was a drug problem.

Lightbeamrider said:

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?

Click to expand...

Uh, that's a hard NO for me.

If she is OK with murdering children then she's very capable of murdering me because she's a servant of the devil.

ZNP said:

It is relevant if you are trying to determine whether or not she was not guilty on the basis of insanity.

Click to expand...

There's ample evidence that she planned the murders so this shows she was not insane.

Obviously she decided to follow the instructions of demons just like Judas did.

RodB651 said:

No, I would not.

Click to expand...

Don't think I would either if I were a male. But I can extend that relationship test further to any man who listened to Candice Owens or Tucker Carlson and their crazy godless theories.

ThereRoseaLamb said:

Don't think I would either if I were a male. But I can extend that relationship test further to any man who listened to Candice Owens or Tucker Carlson and their crazy godless theories.

Click to expand...

We need an animated applause smiley.
Well said!