Don't have a *****
And Don't kill your children

Seems like a pretty low bar, and yet it's amazing how many Democrats are arguing against it.

She literally admitted she killed them.

It's a variety of women in general not just "democrats"

I know I've been posting in understanding of the likelihood of her being found not guilty due to the evidence presented at trial, but I just encountered my first few idiots in the wild who think her husband did it and I'm very angry.

They haven't watched a minute of the trial and have a completely different notion of reality thanks to social media. By the end of the conversation I'd lost faith in humanity's ability to use logic and reason. It was just a bunch of "of course they say she did it because they just believe what the man said."

She confessed to freaking doing it in the hospital, and she confessed to a psychiatrist she did it because she heard a voice telling her to do it. For the Love of Pete's sake she did it. People are stupid and I hate them.

My worst fear in this situation is not that she is acquitted due to insanity, which I think there's evidence to support, but she gets acquitted due to insanity and a whole mob of stupid women ruin this man's life even more.

He lost his three kids when his wife went crazy and now he has to deal with a crazy mob accusing him of being a murderer. What a freaking world we live in.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

It's a variety of women in general not just "democrats"

---

I truly don't think so.

Believing a man in a dress is a woman, is a very Democrat trait.
And so far, the majority of people defending her murderous actions online and treating her as some kind of hero, are also educated, white, liberal women. This doesn't surprise me. Women who are ok with full term abortions, will also be ok with post birth abortions

deddog said:

---

Don't have a *****
And Don't kill your children

Seems like a pretty low bar, and yet it's amazing how many Democrats are arguing against it.

---

Attributing this to just democrat women is sticking your head in the sand. It's divided women on the right also. Candace Owens is saying she's not guilty because she was a pawn of big pharma and there are tons of right wing e girls with a combined tens of millions of followers who are "standing up for women."

Welcome to every post in this thread other than your own.

Did you just make all of this up or did you get it from TikTok?

Vessel said:

---

Welcome to every post in this thread other than your own.

---

No, I believe she was probably legally insane at the time of the murders and probably should be acquitted. That's the difference between me and most people on the thread. I think there's evidence to support her insanity and the defense experts were better than the state's.

I would buy the state theory more if they didn't change horses so many times. They put on a few different experts that all had differing opinions, some of which clashed with the prosecutor's own opening statement.

I think they should have focused on the murder-suicide aspect, that she was mentally ill and suicidal but cognizant of what she was doing. She couldn't go through with the suicide because her kids gave her a reason to live and she was so suicidal that she needed to eliminate her reason to exist so she could finish her own task of killing herself. It's a logic we see a lot of times in these situations. Someone has to kill the people holding them back so that they can then commit suicide. The prosecutors didn't seem to build their case around that theory and I think it will end up hurting them in the end.

I like you take issue with the prosecutions alleged inconsistencies (the only inconsistences are in what they think is wrong with her but are completely consistent in the fact that she was fully aware of what she was doing was wrong) but are fully on board with a person who murders and then two weeks later goes "but I was crazy! I heard voices all day...or maybe after my husband left...or maybe after he called and I didn't answer because I was actively murdering my children and then calmly called him back...hard to remember, busy day".

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Vessel said:

---

Welcome to every post in this thread other than your own.

---

No, I believe she was probably legally insane at the time of the murders and probably should be acquitted. That's the difference between me and most people on the thread. I think there's evidence to support her insanity and the defense experts were better than the state's.

---

What is the evidence and how was it presented in a way where it can't be applied to any other potential murder case?

Quote:

---

I would buy the state theory more if they didn't change horses so many times. They put on a few different experts that all had differing opinions, some of which clashed with the prosecutor's own opening statement.

---

The experts may have all had differing opinions on the actual cause, but they were unanimous in that she was not "insane," correct? If they all say she wasn't insane, then what is the issue?

Yeah, I have asked him multiple times in this thread and he refuses to answer how legal insanity can be applied in this case but not in any other typical murder case.

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

Yeah the only problem with that is that the defense and prosecution agree on the most important details. This woman did - in fact - murder her children. That's all we need to know. She needs to die.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

They don't need to have consistent diagnoses, that's an absurd standard. They aren't her doctor. Not a single diagnosis presented, even by the defense's experts, would conclude that she was incapable of understanding right from wrong. Resnick even leaned towards altruistic filicide which is not an argument against criminal culpability.

It's absolutely mind blowing that an intelligent person can look at the totality of the evidence presented and conclude she is legally insane.

Aggies1322 said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

Yeah the only problem with that is that the defense and prosecution agree on the most important details. This woman did - in fact - murder her children. That's all we need to know. She needs to die.

---

Legally, whether you like it or not, that's not all that we need to know.

Vessel said:

---

Yeah, I have asked him multiple times in this thread and he refuses to answer how legal insanity can be applied in this case but not in any other typical murder case.

---

I've repeatedly answered you. There were days of testimony about her mental health from her treating providers, people who knew her, and expert witnesses. That is anything but typical for a murder case. You brought up Thomas Johnson a few times earlier in the thread and even in that case the defense did not bring up a mental health defense during the guilt phase of the trial. Which side's experts people choose to believe is up to them, but to act like this is just another typical murder case is disingenuous.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

This thread has been taken over by one side who is blinded by their disgust for the crime. But at the end of the day, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the Clancy was not insane at the time of the killings. In fact, they have actually introduced doubt, in my opinion. If she's found not guilty, the prosecution is to blame for putting together a bad case.

You may disagree with the law and wish it were different (I do; it should be up to the defendant to prove they were insane), but with the prosecution has presented us, there's too much doubt.

As far as manslaughter, I can get behind that for several reasons. Because even if she was insane at the time, she had had thoughts of harming the children before and shouldn't have allowed herself to be alone with the kids. On top of that, I have concerns that her seeing as many providers as she did and not giving them complete info and maybe even lying to them contributed to her mental state.

---

You had your mind made up from the get go, so no surprise at all you think the prosecution did not do its job.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

They are not inconsistent in the main question of the case: Was she "legally insane?" They all agreed she was not.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Vessel said:

---

Yeah, I have asked him multiple times in this thread and he refuses to answer how legal insanity can be applied in this case but not in any other typical murder case.

---

I've repeatedly answered you. There were days of testimony about her mental health from her treating providers, people who knew her, and expert witnesses. That is anything but typical for a murder case. You brought up Thomas Johnson a few times earlier in the thread and even in that case the defense did not bring up a mental health defense during the guilt phase of the trial. Which side's experts people choose to believe is up to them, but to act like this is just another typical murder case is disingenuous.

---

Just so we're clear, basically any murderer on trial could theoretically put up the same defense. So you haven't adequately answered the question. The point is her "acute insanity" can't be physically proven or disproven by any amount of testimony.

And I never brought up TJ.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Vessel said:

---

Yeah, I have asked him multiple times in this thread and he refuses to answer how legal insanity can be applied in this case but not in any other typical murder case.

---

I've repeatedly answered you. There were days of testimony about her mental health from her treating providers, people who knew her, and expert witnesses. That is anything but typical for a murder case. You brought up Thomas Johnson a few times earlier in the thread and even in that case the defense did not bring up a mental health defense during the guilt phase of the trial. Which side's experts people choose to believe is up to them, but to act like this is just another typical murder case is disingenuous.

---

You either didn't understand his question or are purposefully dancing around actually having to answer it.

Maybe both.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

They all agreed on the important parts:
1. She murdered her kids
2. She wasn't insane

So what else do you need? Exactly what else do you expect in your higher standards?

Fenrir said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

They don't need to have consistent diagnoses, that's an absurd standard. They aren't her doctor. Not a single diagnosis presented, even by the defense's experts, would conclude that she was incapable of understanding right from wrong. Resnick even leaned towards altruistic filicide which is not an argument against criminal culpability.

It's absolutely mind blowing that an intelligent person can look at the totality of the evidence presented and conclude she is legally insane.

---

She is Edward Norton in Primal Fear

aggietony2010 said:

---

9 women, 3 men on the jury (from the pool of 12 women, 6 men).

***** is gonna walk (and by that I mean spend 12 months in a mental institution and then be declared healed from her one time psychosis)

---

Almost a certainty. Best outcome now is a hung jury.

Good Lord some of yall need therapy more than Clancy does.

The only thing that monster needs is rope and a tree.

HILARIOUS 😂

Woman MOCKS Lindsay Clancy supporters with extreme accuracy‼️

This is the funniest most spot on 🎯 video you will see all day.

Mockery is the most effective way to battle back against the insanity. pic.twitter.com/ac4RmvP76p

— Cinema Shogun (@CinemaShogun) August 26, 2026

Perfect satire of the Lindsay Clancy fan club. Mockery is the best medicine to cure what ails America right now.

Judge excused jury until tomorrow morning.

Hopefully the men are standing their ground against the BSC women that this is a murder 1 charge.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof so personally I hold them to a higher standard. When their own theories of the case and expert witnesses are inconsistent it makes a conviction less likely.

---

The prosecutors have the burden of proof as to whether or not the accused committed the act. That fact is not in question.

The burden of proof for insanity is 100% on the defense.

schmellba99 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

This thread has been taken over by one side who is blinded by their disgust for the crime. But at the end of the day, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the Clancy was not insane at the time of the killings. In fact, they have actually introduced doubt, in my opinion. If she's found not guilty, the prosecution is to blame for putting together a bad case.

You may disagree with the law and wish it were different (I do; it should be up to the defendant to prove they were insane), but with the prosecution has presented us, there's too much doubt.

As far as manslaughter, I can get behind that for several reasons. Because even if she was insane at the time, she had had thoughts of harming the children before and shouldn't have allowed herself to be alone with the kids. On top of that, I have concerns that her seeing as many providers as she did and not giving them complete info and maybe even lying to them contributed to her mental state.

---

You had your mind made up from the get go, so no surprise at all you think the prosecution did not do its job.

---

That's just not accurate and I challenge you to find proof.

Chris Watts murdered his kids and is in jail for life....White women kills her kids and she is about to walk. The most privileged class in the USA.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

Good Lord some of yall need therapy more than Clancy does.

---

None of us have killed our kids.

So, No.