That was not her plea in court.
Those are impossible to prove. So Reddington did not go that route.
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.
Those are impossible to prove. So Reddington did not go that route.
But I have already said I am not interested in the case. What I am interested in is a large group of women cheering someone being tried for murdering three children, and I am also interested in a juror being doxed, and I am interested in other jurors upset because they thought this woman getting found not guilty by reason of insanity would be a springboard for a discussion on post partum deppression.
Yes I responded hastily, it was “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility”
I expressed an opinion on the testimony of Patrick Clansy during the trial as lacking deception because I watched the entire testimony, frame by frame, and a deception expert broke it down.
I did that because others, like yourself were casting shade on Patrick. I found no basis for those assertions.
I am a big fan of Lucille Ball. You must have gone into the dark corner of your closet to find this one.
"How I Love Lucy was born? We decided that instead of divorce lawyers profiting from our mistakes, we'd profit from them." Lucille Ball
Just so you know....
It was prosecution’s main role in Mass. where it is reversed to prove that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible at the time she killed her children, not simply that she caused their deaths.
The Commonwealth had to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant does not have to prove that she was legally insane.
It was Reddington"s role to cast the doubt.
Yes, I understand that, I have shared that twice so far in this thread. But I pointed out that this could not have come with the presumption that she was not criminally responsible, because if that is the case it would be biased.
I think many people did not understand that. You cannot require the prosecutor to prove an impossibility in order to get a conviction. Therefore "beyond a reasonable doubt" could simply mean that adults are criminally responsible and there was no evidence that this woman should not have been treated as an adult.
This was the point of my question. What evidence do you need to prove you are not criminally responsible? Lack of that evidence should be sufficient to prove she was criminally responsible.
People looking for the Lord's return have the light of the world, so even if they enter a dark closet it won't stay dark. Jesus is the light of the world and the light overcomes the darkness.
What does Hillary Clinton and Lindsay Clancy have in common? They both have the same people as avid supporters.
Think of how weird that is, why would Hillary Clinton have the same avid supporters as a woman that killed her three children? Oh, wait, on second thought, I guess it isn't all that weird after all.
Think of how weird that is, why would Hillary Clinton have the same avid supporters as a woman that killed her three children? Oh, wait, on second thought, I guess it isn't all that weird after all.
Lack of evidence can contribute but it does not automatically create reasonable doubt, that is just shifting the burden to the defense.
The Massachusetts Guide to Evidence specifically says that once there is supporting evidence raising criminal responsibility, the ordinary inference that a person is sane by itself cannot establish criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well obviously. Hillary Clinton is gone, they need a new champion to support killing babies.Grasping at straws.
So you have evidence that the person is sane, the defense does not have to produce any evidence that they were not criminally responsible and yet even though you have evidence they were that does not meet the threshhold for reasonable doubt that they aren't criminally responsible.
Fine, what exactly is the requirement that rises to the level of reasonable doubt. Because if there is nothing, then the law is a joke.
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]
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. 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.
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]
- That the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the exact time of the offense.
- 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.