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:
It seems to me this does raise an important issue when choosing a jury. Ask them "Do you intend to use this trial as a soap box to advance your personal agenda?"
Click to expand...

If you ever get called to jury duty, just tell them you highly doubt the police and the district attorney would be risking their careers by indicting someone when they don't have good evidence that the person is actually guilty - and they'll excuse you from jury duty

I wouldn't be able to serve in jury duty because I actually believe the police and the district attorney would not be risking their careers by indicting someone when they don't have good evidence that the person is actually guilty.
 
Citizen said:
Well, you did just make that up. Much as I despise Healy's policies and hope she's voted out, the visits are VOLUNTARY.

"Governor Healey is proposing $2 million to expand Welcome Family, a voluntary and free home visiting program that supports parents and caregivers in the weeks after a baby is born."


Facts matter.
Click to expand...
And you think because these visits are "voluntary" that refusal will end the matter?
 
ScooterJackson said:
If you ever get called to jury duty, just tell them you highly doubt the police and the district attorney would be risking their careers by indicting someone when they don't have good evidence that the person is actually guilty - and they'll excuse you from jury duty

I wouldn't be able to serve in jury duty because I actually believe the police and the district attorney would not be risking their careers by indicting someone when they don't have good evidence that the person is actually guilty.
Click to expand...

She was indicted by a grand jury, so no one's career was at risk. :rolleyes:

Yes agree, find a way to get out of jury duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarriePie
HeIsHere said:
She was indicted by a grand jury, so no one's career was at risk
Click to expand...

Hello! Before the case was ever taken to the grand jury the police and the district attorney collected good evidence that the person is actually guilty and that is what they took to the grand jury who in turn agreed there was good enough evidence collected to charge her with murder.

There have been criminal cases where poor evidence was collected and or the police or district attorney lied or misrepresented evidence and it cost them their careers. Some ended up in jail themselves or were taken to civil court in lawsuits against them for not doing their job right.
 
ZNP said:
I think it is more than shameful, it is defamatory. It might be a criminal violation of the sixth amendment. Three of the jurors have publicly given interviews which could now be used in any trial (either to accuse the holdout juror of lying or to sue the lawyer for defaming him). In those interviews they made it clear the question was not about guilt, they knew she had murdered the three children viciously. The question was about whether or not she could tell right from wrong.

Now there was no evidence of her being psychotic prior to this event or since this event. So this question is even more narrow, was she able to tell right or wrong at the moment she was killing each of the three kids? One of the jurors in an interview said she saw this trial as an opportunity to raise the issue of post partum depression (lasting 8 months after your third child). So even though she could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay had a psychotic episode at the moment she was manipulating her husband to stay away while she killed the three children, she wanted it to be the case so they could start this conversation about post partum depression.

It seems to me this does raise an important issue when choosing a jury. Ask them "Do you intend to use this trial as a soap box to advance your personal agenda?"
Click to expand...

If this is allowed to just go ahead, the juror being outed and spoken about as though he was less than the others, things will change and not for the better within the legal system.

There was no evidence for the supposed psychosis, as you state, prior to her contacting a lawyer from the hospital. She had been diagnosed by multiple doctors with anxiety and depression but the new diagnosis of psychosis appeared before the trial.

This entire episode has exposed even more of the insanity that far too many women (and some men) in this country have allowed themselves to become a part of. I really had hoped the judge would just have committed her to an endless loop of evaluations and
psychologists sadly admitting she should just stay there.

Truthfully, I get somewhat angry now every time her face is flashed on the news and that profile with her complacent composure and expectant release from the big bad judge and society who just doesn't understand is revealed. Her lawyer has her convinced, if no one else, that she shall be declared free to go. It's such a farce.
 
ScooterJackson said:
Hello! Before the case was ever taken to the grand jury the police and the district attorney collected good evidence that the person is actually guilty and that is what they took to the grand jury who in turn agreed there was good enough evidence collected to charge her with murder.

There have been criminal cases where poor evidence was collected and or the police or district attorney lied or misrepresented evidence and it cost them their careers. Some ended up in jail themselves or were taken to civil court in lawsuits against them for not doing their job right.
Click to expand...

Read carefully >>>> she was indicted by a grand jury.
 
HeIsHere said:
Read carefully >>>> she was indicted by a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Read carefully >>>> the cops took the evidence to the district attorney who in turn took it to the grand jury who decided these was enough evidence to indict her for murder.

You should get a quick refresher on how the criminal justice system works.
 
NightTwister said:
And you think because these visits are "voluntary" that refusal will end the matter?
Click to expand...

I think facts matter. They are voluntary as stated on the gov website. That may change in the future, but it is not mandatory now. Until someone proves otherwise, it is what it is. Making things up tabloid style to get people ramped up isn't helpful or beneficial.
 
ScooterJackson said:
Read carefully >>>> the cops took the evidence to the district attorney who in turn took it to the grand jury who decided these was enough evidence to indict her for murder.

You should get a quick refresher on how the criminal justice system works.
Click to expand...

Last attempt, since you are having trouble with your own statement.

..the police and the district attorney would not be risking their careers by indicting someone when they don't have good evidence that the person is actually guilty.

She was indicted by a grand jury.

The grand jury has absolute immunity.

Maybe time you grew up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarriePie
My goodness just make stuff up to defend one's position.

Psychosis is a retrospective diagnosis.

It has to happen before it can be diagnosed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarriePie
HeIsHere said:
She was indicted by a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the police and the district attorney presented the evidence to them that they had collected.
Grand juries don't indict anybody without seeing and considering evidence brought to them by the police and district attorney


HeIsHere said:
Maybe time you grew up.
Click to expand...

More like time for you to get a quick refresher on how the criminal justice system works.
 
Citizen said:
I think facts matter. They are voluntary as stated on the gov website. That may change in the future, but it is not mandatory now. Until someone proves otherwise, it is what it is. Making things up tabloid style to get people ramped up isn't helpful or beneficial.
Click to expand...
Did I say anything about mandatory at any time? Please don't misrepresent what I said.
 
ScooterJackson said:
Yes, because the police and the district attorney presented the evidence to them that they had collected.
Grand juries don't indict anybody without seeing and considering evidence brought to them by the police and district attorney




More like time for you to get a quick refresher on how the criminal justice system works.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CarriePie
You: "And you think because these visits are "voluntary" that refusal will end the matter?"

If refusal doesn't end the matter, what comes next?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back