Stay away from crazy ass women.
Lindsay Clancy Trial
162,443 Views |
1697 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by Whoop2
deddog said:FireAg said:deddog said:FireAg said:
All well and good…quite possibly spot on…except that the jury has struggled, so far, to reach that same conclusion…
What my ultimate question is…why?
Because this is a liberal state. There are 9 women on the jury. And they are ruling by emotion over facts.
I mean sure…that certainly plays a role, but Texas is not a liberal state, and Texas ruled Yates NGRI on appeal, so…
The circumstances in each case appear to be fairly similar…
You keep saying they are similar, but they are not.
This woman had ZERO history of schrizophenia or hearing voices or anything that might suggest she was insane.
Never happened before, and never happened since.
She was on no medication for anything like this.
She did not take medications that she was already prescribed, and researched killing her kids. Did the voices make her do that?
Did the voices ask her to turn the kids over before murdering them?
Did the voices ask her to chase down one of the kids, bring them back and strangle?
Did the voice ask her to jump out the window?
I keep asking myself "What did she have to gain by killing her children?" That's major for a straight up murder/death penalty case to me. She's nuts.
Did she, or did she not, take any of her mental meds? I'm hearing two stories here.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
The prosecution carefully explained Grimsly killed her children because they were an obstacle to her planned suicide.
PlaneCrashGuy said:
God bless anyone who is steadfast in voting guilty and is not willing to compromise to what I suspect is immense pressure in that room.
Fantastic news
🚨#BREAKING: Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case after hung jury.
— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) September 4, 2026
A single LONE MAN held out against the many to not let her off.
GOD BLESS THAT MAN!!!!!!
Now wait a minute. Is this before or after the extra hour the judge granted?
That tweet is from 2 hours ago.
Defense filed their appeal, waiting on response currently.
Defense filed their appeal, waiting on response currently.
Court broke for lunch, at least until 1pm CST
Burpelson said:
Sounds like they will get a poll as to what was agreed on by jury therefore will not get dbl jeopardy on certain counts.
None of that applies if there is a mistrial. It will be as if the case was never tried.
This poor guy is gonna get doxxed and better lay low for a while. I have seen reports that he took alot of abuse from the jury foreman already.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this post reflect the opinions of Texags user bonfarr and are not to be accepted as facts or to be taken at face value.
The petition for stay is out.
Will try to find a link
Will try to find a link
Hearing currently taking place with the Appellate judge. Streaming on Boston 10 YouTube feed.
Welp, the defense's appeal to avoid the mistrial has been filed…
This case isn't done being interesting…
This case isn't done being interesting…
FireAg said:
Welp, the defense's appeal to avoid the mistrial has been filed…
This case isn't done being interesting…
What happens if their request is granted?
For those not on social media…there are countless posts like this. But even more disturbing, they are littered with THOUSANDS of psychotic women who fully agree in the comments sections…
https://instagr.am/p/DcBWbVrOSxB
https://instagr.am/p/DcBWbVrOSxB
Thunderstruck xx said:FireAg said:
Welp, the defense's appeal to avoid the mistrial has been filed…
This case isn't done being interesting…
What happens if their request is granted?
No clue…
The prevailing theory is that this will fail, and the mistrial will be official…
Help me understand what is going on. As it stands, the judge declared a mistrial because the jury is deadlocked 11-1 and the defense is trying to issue a stay and/or appeal this becoming a mistrial. What recourse is there? Is it possible for a judge or the state supreme court to override a single juror and basically decide the verdict on behalf of the jury?
The defense motion is requesting a writ of mandamus to force the trial court to individually interview the jurors to inquire as to whether this one juror is refusing to follow the law or if there is simply a dispute over interpretation of the evidence.
They had been working on this filing since yesterday and the filing really didn't have anything to do with the judge wanting to declare mistrial. They were already going to file this before the jury came back again saying they were deadlocked.
The prosecutors argument is that the judge has the discretion to do that and has declined, and should not be overruled.
They had been working on this filing since yesterday and the filing really didn't have anything to do with the judge wanting to declare mistrial. They were already going to file this before the jury came back again saying they were deadlocked.
The prosecutors argument is that the judge has the discretion to do that and has declined, and should not be overruled.
If we get to the point where we can throw a juror out because they don't agree with the majority, then where are we? Why not if 2, or 3, or 4? Where does it end. Bad road to go down.
The judge seemed to indicate she would issue a quick ruling
Rockdoc said:
If we get to the point where we can throw a juror out because they don't agree with the majority, then where are we? Why not if 2, or 3, or 4? Where does it end. Bad road to go down.
That's not what they are arguing here. The foreperson indicated the juror expressed doubt in the prosecution's case but is refusing to follow the law.
GB is kind of a kook, but he makes a good point here. Probably not hard to figure out which of the three men was the holdout.
Let’s call this what it is, the defense attorney in the Lindsay Clancy trial just doxxed the lone member of the jury that led to this mistrial. By publicly pointing out that the single holdout in the 11-1 mistrial was one of only three men on the jury, he put a massive, dangerous…
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) September 4, 2026
ErnestEndeavor said:Rockdoc said:
If we get to the point where we can throw a juror out because they don't agree with the majority, then where are we? Why not if 2, or 3, or 4? Where does it end. Bad road to go down.
That's not what they are arguing here. The foreperson indicated the juror expressed doubt in the prosecution's case but is refusing to follow the law.
We don't know the specifics. I think that's exactly what is going on here.
Rockdoc said:
If we get to the point where we can throw a juror out because they don't agree with the majority, then where are we? Why not if 2, or 3, or 4? Where does it end. Bad road to go down.
Yeah that would be a very dangerous precedent to set…
The foreman is claiming that the other person is not following the law. Taking that at face value would be nuts. Interviewing the jurors would be prudent and I assume that's what will likely happen.
I am the holdout pic.twitter.com/sLMJ3buLfk
— Dr. Clown, PhD (@DrClownPhD) September 3, 2026
Fenrir said:
The foreman is claiming that the other person is not following the law. Taking that at face value would be nuts. Interviewing the jurors would be prudent and I assume that's what will likely happen.
Yes I agree with that, but are we just gonna take the word of 11 tired, pissed off jurors that want to go home and be done with it?
Doubt in general is not the same as reasonable doubt. Just because any off the wall scenario can cause doubt, doesn't mean its reasonable doubt. You cannot reasonably force remove a jurist because they believe something is not a reasonable doubt vs other jurists.
Denied!
Quote:
Stay away from crazy ass women.
Good luck identifying the non-crazy ones. Even better luck to you on them staying that way.
sam callahan said:Quote:
Stay away from crazy ass women.
Good luck identifying the non-crazy ones. Even better luck to you on them staying that way.
Start with how they vote....thats the first red flag.
Mistrial declared by Judge.
Judge now giving the jury a speech thanking them for their service.
I assume the state we re-try?
sam callahan said:Quote:
Stay away from crazy ass women.
Good luck identifying the non-crazy ones. Even better luck to you on them staying that way.
Well, it's a lot easier now.
How do you feel about the Lindsey Clancy?
Covidians, Communists, CNN, FOX, and all other MSM are enemies of the state and should be treated as such.
Hardcore Greg said:
For those not on social media…there are countless posts like this. But even more disturbing, they are littered with THOUSANDS of psychotic women who fully agree in the comments sections…
https://instagr.am/p/DcBWbVrOSxB
terrifying
Featured Stories
See All
12:58
13h ago
11k
The Loochador Podcast: Head-scratcher creates more concerns
by Billy Liucci
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Kentucky 31, Texas A&M 21
by Olin Buchanan
No. 15 A&M notches ranked road win over No. 20 Creighton
by Grace Nichter
Kay's Takeaways: No. 15 Texas A&M 3, No. 20 Creighton 1
by Kay Naegeli
DallasAg83
The Loochador Podcast: Head-scratcher creates more concerns
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7