Lindsay Clancy Trial

179,687 Views | 1798 Replies | Last: 16 min ago by Got a Natty!
David_Puddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 7:57p, 9/4/26
FireAg said:
deddog said:
Fenrir said:
Everything down to manslaugher was on the table for this trial. The people of MA apparently just believe she has zero culpability.

THAT is insanity.

I don't see how we can live with these kind of people. I really don't.

At what point do we decide that…

…wait for it…

…we can't?


I honestly think that had this brave man caved to the mob we might've seen the true "far right" come out of hiding and start some real chaos. Which of course that's what all of these lunatics wanted right before midterms. This lone reasonable juror could d helped ensure that the lunatics don't take over the senate & house
Reply Quote
David_Puddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SpreadsheetAg • 7:59p, 9/4/26
SpreadsheetAg said:
It's definitely a litmus test for marriage and dating.

What guy is going to date or marry or have kids with a woman who believes Lindsey Clancy was a cause to defend?

Toxic


Liberal men or ****s
Reply Quote
Enrico Pallazzo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 8:08p, 9/4/26
HTownAg98 said:
Some people are having a problem realizing that the prosecution didn't put on a good case and were hamstrung by a bad police investigation, and they ran up against a defense attorney who was more than capable of pouncing on every single ****up the state made.


Some people are having trouble realizing there is no reasonable doubt here regardless of the lawyer report cards. It's not a law school mock trial competition; it's a determination of whether she is a murderer. She is.
Reply Quote
1 edit
David_Puddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 8:10p, 9/4/26
BadMoonRisin said:
I wonder how much the pressure increased in the deliberation room with the d-bag defense attorney putting out a statement that Lindsay couldn't emotionally handle another trial.

This is kind of a weird thing here, the defense attorney kind of sending signals to a non-sequestered jury, and then outing a juror who was dissenting by his gender. Seems kind of, well, illegal or at least shouldnt happen in an honest case of jurisprudence.

Either way, mistrial is what it is and what was expected. I hope Lindsay gets a second chance at what she failed at before, and succeeds this time; prior to the re-trial.


At this point I think I'm with you here. The fact that she was one juror away from walking free is just beyond comprehension. It doesn't seem like the lunatics in Mass will ever put her where she belongs rotting in prison for the rest of her life, so suicide would be the next best option
Reply Quote
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enrico Pallazzo • 8:13p, 9/4/26
Except that the jury is the only thing that matters, and the only thing they see (or are at least supposed to see) is what the lawyers say, the witnesses say, and what the judge says the can or can't consider. So yeah, the report card matters whether you like it or not.
Reply Quote
Enrico Pallazzo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:16p, 9/4/26
And she's still guilty AF, as presented in court or otherwise.
Reply Quote
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 8:17p, 9/4/26
The jury was full of liberal dumbasses. This case was lost the moment they seated dumbass woke libs, just like the OJ case was lost when they seated his peers.

Its as simple as that.
Reply Quote
BadMoonRisin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:23p, 9/4/26
So now that's done, can anyone post some sort of evidence from WineMom Tiktok that supports the fact that it was anyone other than Lindsay herself that murdered her children?

Any evidence at all? I saw a lot of "he wasnt supportive", "he changed shoes", "women don't strangle" nonsense, but I'm willing to change my mind if the evidence is different than what I think now and that was presented in trial.

Or is it just the feelz, like everything else with them?

Again, I will change my mind, if there is evidence to the contrary. I just havent seen it since I dont drink 2.5 bottles of wine a night and doomscroll tiktok.
Reply Quote
3 edits
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Logos Stick • 8:26p, 9/4/26
The case was lost when the cops did a piss poor job investigating the case and the b-league prosecutors tried to sleep-walk through it. And then they ran up against a defense attorney who knew what he was doing and shredded their case.

The blame for all this rests on the state. Hell, they even had a chance to build the jury in some degree how they wanted, and they messed that up if we believe what you say. Maybe they just screwed this case.
Reply Quote
2 edits
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 8:31p, 9/4/26
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.
Reply Quote
BadMoonRisin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 8:39p, 9/4/26
HTownAg98 said:
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.

Right, but the people standing outside of the courthouse with pink clothing on doing heart signs with their hands certainly think that she was framed, I think.

Some people who have burst into this thread like the KoolAid Man Columbo in the last day or two have spouses who just think that it is impossible that she could have done it. I'm just asking why, and what the evidence is that they think supports their claims.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Mathguy64
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 8:43p, 9/4/26
BadMoonRisin said:
HTownAg98 said:
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.

Right, but the people standing outside of the courthouse with pink clothing on doing heart signs with their hands certainly think that she was framed, I think.


Even her lawyer admitted she did it. Anyone thinking she was framed is beyond delusional.
Reply Quote
BadMoonRisin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mathguy64 • 8:45p, 9/4/26
Mathguy64 said:
BadMoonRisin said:
HTownAg98 said:
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.

Right, but the people standing outside of the courthouse with pink clothing on doing heart signs with their hands certainly think that she was framed, I think.


Even her lawyer admitted she did it. Anyone thinking she was framed is beyond delusional.

Again, understood. But there is a non-zero population that thinks that she didnt do it at all. Im wondering how they came to that conclusion other than the fact that a social media algorithm owned by the CCP somehow turned them (AWFULs) into hypnotoads believing that she had nothing to do with it.

I guess what I'm asking for is how the delusional in your context came upon their beliefs.

Talk all day long and criticize the prosecution, but this wasn't a very hard case to decide.
Reply Quote
3 edits
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 8:49p, 9/4/26
BadMoonRisin said:
HTownAg98 said:
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.

Right, but the people standing outside of the courthouse with pink clothing on doing heart signs with their hands certainly think that she was framed, I think.

Some people who have burst into this thread like the KoolAid Man Columbo in the last day or two have spouses who just think that it is impossible that she could have done it. I'm just asking why, and what the evidence is that they think supports their claims.

There isn't any. About the best you can do is dismiss those non-zero people as bat-**** crazy and go on with your day.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Mathguy64
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 8:49p, 9/4/26
BadMoonRisin said:
Mathguy64 said:
BadMoonRisin said:
HTownAg98 said:
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.

Right, but the people standing outside of the courthouse with pink clothing on doing heart signs with their hands certainly think that she was framed, I think.


Even her lawyer admitted she did it. Anyone thinking she was framed is beyond delusional.

Again, understood. But there is a non-zero population that thinks that she didnt do it at all. Im wondering how they came to that conclusion other than the fact that a social media algorithm owned by the CCP somehow turned them (AWFULs) into hypnotoads believing that she had nothing to do with it.


There is a non zero population that thinks the world is flat. There is a non zero population that thinks the moon landings were fake. There is a non zero population that thinks Elvis is alive.

The Venn diagram for these people is probably a decent circle. Crazy doesn't limit itself to just one looney tune.
Reply Quote
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:18p, 9/4/26
Reply Quote
ATX_AG_08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48p, 9/4/26
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ATX_AG_08 • 11:21p, 9/4/26
ATX_AG_08 said:

This is a very sad truth. They'd know who it was while they came through intake, because trustees are right there with intake. Trustees are still offenders, and have to walk the line. A guy would be marked immediately and have real problems after. The love for this woman is sick.
Reply Quote
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:31p, 9/4/26
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -George Orwell, 1984
Reply Quote
P.H. Dexippus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54p, 9/4/26
Based on exit polling, if not for the female vote, there are no Presidents Clinton, Obama or Biden. Nevermind the impacts to Congressional elections and statewide. Oh, the carnage wrought.
Reply Quote
The Unforgiven
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:33a, 9/5/26
Reply Quote
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to David_Puddy • 5:34a, 9/5/26

At this point I think I'm with you here. The fact that she was one juror away from walking free is just beyond comprehension.

Well she ain't walking anywhere which is about the only thing positive I see in this horrible tragedy. Her fake suicides at least have her wheelchair bound but I've got a bad feeling she would get up and walk if she truly was found NGRI once they say she's not loony anymore.

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Reply Quote
Rocky Rider
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to OverSeas AG • 7:18a, 9/5/26
OverSeas AG said:
Where is the outrage for the children and their justice?

Left is silent.


Once they become comfortable aborting millions of children, anything is possible.
Reply Quote
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enrico Pallazzo • 7:33a, 9/5/26
Enrico Pallazzo said:
HTownAg98 said:
Some people are having a problem realizing that the prosecution didn't put on a good case and were hamstrung by a bad police investigation, and they ran up against a defense attorney who was more than capable of pouncing on every single ****up the state made.


Some people are having trouble realizing there is no reasonable doubt here regardless of the lawyer report cards. It's not a law school mock trial competition; it's a determination of whether she is a murderer. She is.


Some people clearly didn't follow the trial at all and are only piling on due to what they are reading on social media. There was extensive testimony about her mental state at the time and Massachusetts law puts the burden on the prosecution to prove sanity. The prosecutors bungled and presented a disjointed, incoherent case. Their theory of the case changed mid-trial. The defense experts were better.

"Let's not follow the law and not make the state meet their burden" is just as dangerous of a mentality. The state doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, nor should they.

This was not even close to a runaway jury. Every attorney that I've seen cover this case, even based attorneys who personally believed she was guilty, thought an NGRI jury verdict was reasonable.
Reply Quote
Aggies1322
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ErnestEndeavor • 7:35a, 9/5/26
ErnestEndeavor said:
Enrico Pallazzo said:
HTownAg98 said:
Some people are having a problem realizing that the prosecution didn't put on a good case and were hamstrung by a bad police investigation, and they ran up against a defense attorney who was more than capable of pouncing on every single ****up the state made.


Some people are having trouble realizing there is no reasonable doubt here regardless of the lawyer report cards. It's not a law school mock trial competition; it's a determination of whether she is a murderer. She is.


Some people clearly didn't follow the trial at all and are only piling on due to what they are reading on social media. There was extensive testimony about her mental state at the time and Massachusetts law puts the burden on the prosecution to prove sanity. The prosecutors bungled and presented a disjointed, incoherent case. Their theory of the case changed mid-trial. The defense experts were better.

"Let's not follow the law and not make the state meet their burden" is just as dangerous of a mentality. The state doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, nor should they.

This was not even close to a runaway jury. Every attorney that I've seen cover this case, even based attorneys who personally believed she was guilty, thought an NGRI jury verdict was reasonable.

We get it.. you're one of the psychopaths that thinks a woman murdering her children is okay. You're not moving anyone off their position because we aren't insane like you.
Reply Quote
YokelRidesAgain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to P.H. Dexippus • 7:37a, 9/5/26
P.H. Dexippus said:
Based on exit polling, if not for the female vote, there are no Presidents Clinton, Obama or Biden. Nevermind the impacts to Congressional elections and statewide. Oh, the carnage wrought.

Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008 received pluralities of the male vote (i.e., more votes than the Republican candidate).

But yeah, based on the female vote alone Democrats would have won every Presidential election since 1992.
Reply Quote
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tony Franklins Other Shoe • 7:40a, 9/5/26
Even the prosecution psych experts believed her suicide attempts were real.

The state theory of the case by the end of the trial seemed to be that it was an attempted murder-suicide. She was extremely depressed and suicidal but could not complete her suicide because her kids needed her. But, in her mind, if the kids are no longer around then no one needs her alive anymore so she could finally justify killing herself.

This happens a lot in suicide cases. Someone will view someone else being alive as an obstacle to ending their own life so they kill them first.

This is the most likely scenario to me and does not absolve her of culpability. The problem is the state could not prove this. In Massachusetts the burden is on the state to prove legal sanity. They did not do a good job of doing that and their experts faltered on the witness stand.
Reply Quote
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggies1322 • 7:55a, 9/5/26
Just like we don't want a world in which people are acquitted based on emotion, we don't convict based on emotion either. We don't want a system where the prosecutor gets the benefit of the doubt. That's how the state puts its boot on your face.
Reply Quote
KingofHazor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ErnestEndeavor • 7:56a, 9/5/26
ErnestEndeavor said:
Even the prosecution psych experts believed her suicide attempts were real.

The state theory of the case by the end of the trial seemed to be that it was an attempted murder-suicide. She was extremely depressed and suicidal but could not complete her suicide because her kids needed her. But, in her mind, if the kids are no longer around then no one needs her alive anymore so she could finally justify killing herself.

This happens a lot in suicide cases. Someone will view someone else being alive as an obstacle to ending their own life so they kill them first.

This is the most likely scenario to me and does not absolve her of culpability. The problem is the state could not prove this. In Massachusetts the burden is on the state to prove legal sanity. They did not do a good job of doing that and their experts faltered on the witness stand.

Good post. MA has the laws most friendly to NGBRI of any state in the country. What you said is correct - in Mass, the defense doesn't have the burden of proving she was insane. Instead, the prosecution has the burden of proving that she was sane.

That's insane!
Reply Quote
Aggies1322
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ErnestEndeavor • 7:58a, 9/5/26
ErnestEndeavor said:
Just like we don't want a world in which people are acquitted based on emotion, we don't convict based on emotion either. We don't want a system where the prosecutor gets the benefit of the doubt. That's how the state puts its boot on your face.


I'm not convicting her off of emotion.. I'm convicting her off the indisputable evidence that she murdered her 3 kids. Ya know.. since she and her lawyers have said she did it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zombie Jon Snow
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:05a, 9/5/26

Remember the "bear or man" in the woods scenario for liberals.

How bout this:

Would you rather leave your children unsupervised with Lindsay Clancey for 1 week or any generic christian conservative mother? Let's use Karoline Leavitt.

They would pick Clancey. No doubt.
Reply Quote
David_Puddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mathguy64 • 8:08a, 9/5/26
Mathguy64 said:
BadMoonRisin said:
Mathguy64 said:
BadMoonRisin said:
HTownAg98 said:
That's a red herring; it was never an issue that she did it. The defense pretty much admitted it. The only issue was whether she had the mental culpability to do it.

Right, but the people standing outside of the courthouse with pink clothing on doing heart signs with their hands certainly think that she was framed, I think.


Even her lawyer admitted she did it. Anyone thinking she was framed is beyond delusional.

Again, understood. But there is a non-zero population that thinks that she didnt do it at all. Im wondering how they came to that conclusion other than the fact that a social media algorithm owned by the CCP somehow turned them (AWFULs) into hypnotoads believing that she had nothing to do with it.


There is a non zero population that thinks the world is flat. There is a non zero population that thinks the moon landings were fake. There is a non zero population that thinks Elvis is alive.

The Venn diagram for these people is probably a decent circle. Crazy doesn't limit itself to just one looney tune.


The flat Earthers & people who think Elvis is still alive are insane, but do you really think people who believe that the moon landing was a production are crazy? Because I've seen plenty of evidence that says otherwise. Californication lyrics tell you it was fake as well. But I'm sure you'll label me a conspiracy theorist even though you probably can't answer to why all of that footage was lost and we haven't done another landing despite 100x better technology. Have a good day though and BTHO Mizzou State
Reply Quote
ErnestEndeavor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggies1322 • 8:10a, 9/5/26
The trial wasn't about whether she did it or not, it was whether she was legally culpable due to her mental state. The mental health testimony was 50/50 at best for the prosecution and they couldn't overcome their burden to prove she was legally sane at the time.

Massachusetts has it backwards from most other states.

In Texas, the defense has the burden to prove insanity which is one of the reasons we don't see it a lot here. If Texas law was applied to this case I think a conviction would be more likely.
Reply Quote
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zombie Jon Snow • 8:14a, 9/5/26
Zombie Jon Snow said:

Remember the "bear or man" in the woods scenario for liberals.

How bout this:

Would you rather leave your children unsupervised with Lindsay Clancey for 1 week or any generic christian conservative mother? Let's use Karoline Leavitt.

They would pick Clancey. No doubt.


Hey man, a generic Christian conservative mother could do real damage to those children...

We are Sodom.
Reply Quote
Aggies1322
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ErnestEndeavor • 8:17a, 9/5/26
ErnestEndeavor said:
The trial wasn't about whether she did it or not, it was whether she was legally culpable due to her mental state. The mental health testimony was 50/50 at best for the prosecution and they couldn't overcome their burden to prove she was legally sane at the time.

Massachusetts has it backwards from most other states.

In Texas, the defense has the burden to prove insanity which is one of the reasons we don't see it a lot here. If Texas law was applied to this case I think a conviction would be more likely.

Again - I don't care. Our society is completely broken. The reality is that she killed her kids and should be put to death. Thats it. End of story.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.