Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

I am absolutely APPALLED. The ADA actually asked Patrick Clancy’s mother whether she knew murder was a mortal sin. Judge Sullivan immediately jumped in, struck it from the record and called a sidebar. What was the purpose of that question other than to inflame the jury and inject religion...

106,904 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 41

Фото профиля moiracathleen
moiracathleen1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries To obtain a mistrial because she knows the Commonwealth has lost the case.

Фото профиля Kelly💚🌴
Kelly💚🌴1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries That’s exactly what I think, but that could lose her Ali Motta found case law she sent to Bob

Фото профиля MullenLaw
MullenLaw1 месяц назад

I can’t believe my ears!!! Holy shit! Reddington is bookmarking that one! Even the way she framed it! Not that the Catholic Church believes it is a mortal sin but that it IS a mortal sin. This is mistrial AND disciplinary material. Just when I thought this prosecution could not shock me anymore than it already has!!!🤯🤯🤯

Фото профиля Kelly💚🌴
Kelly💚🌴1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Sadly Lally changing times and inverting video and Hank and the shirt debacle were not a bad as what this lady did

Фото профиля t-dawg
t-dawg1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries They have zero limits and for this I feel like they have failed, miserably!

Фото профиля Kelly💚🌴
Kelly💚🌴1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries I screamed at the computer, they did that on purpose then using her faith??? I’m so angry

Фото профиля t-dawg
t-dawg1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries A sure sign they have lost, badly! Throw the towel, it’s over! No matter where one stands on this case, those ladies have done a horrible job, and it’s not completely over, what will they come up with next??

Фото профиля Lorna
Lorna1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Honestly, wtaf was she doing? Wtaf did she think she was doing? He best have asked for a mistrial!

Фото профиля Kelly💚🌴
Kelly💚🌴1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Girl I don’t know

Фото профиля Dash21
Dash211 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Are you fucking kidding me wow!!!!! No fucking morals

Фото профиля Kelly💚🌴
Kelly💚🌴1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries NONE AT ALLLLL I SCREAMED! I can’t believe the audacity

Фото профиля Amy Hernandez ~ ‘wretched’ and ‘hysterical’
Amy Hernandez ~ ‘wretched’ and ‘hysterical’1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries It was meant to inflict emotional and mental pain on Lindsay. ADA has been seeming like she has a personal vendetta against her and wants to punish her through the trial, not by a verdict.

Фото профиля @DiannaMotta6478 YouTube
@DiannaMotta6478 YouTube1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries I am appalled. This needs to stop. I am filing a report against the two of them TODAY. Fuck this. These women should not be prosecutors.

Фото профиля FancySchmancy
FancySchmancy1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries She is the epitome of bottom of the barrell SCUM!

Фото профиля Ally
Ally1 месяц назад

@LexiTheLawNerd @defense_diaries I don’t even know what to say. I’m appalled. My jaw literally dropped.

Фото профиля InMyAreaaa ⁴ 🖤💕
InMyAreaaa ⁴ 🖤💕1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Dang and I thought Hank Brennan was bad. This hairbow lady is really giving him a run for his money.

Фото профиля Sydney D'Oro Orlik
Sydney D'Oro Orlik1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries The prosecution is all over the place. My guess is they are trying to get at showing that Lindsay knew what she was doing was wrong both legally and I guess in accordance with her religion?? And that she had a nice time at mass...all to say she wasn't "insane"... but yikes.

Фото профиля Dawn millward
Dawn millward1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries These two clowns sank what little careers they had with this case

Фото профиля Betsey 🇺🇸
Betsey 🇺🇸1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries They are absolutely sickening scumbags. Unbelievable

Фото профиля Ro ♟️
Ro ♟️1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries The prosecutor absolutely lost the fucking plot bitch are you fucking serious????? Even the court recorder threw her head back in disbelief.

Фото профиля Jane Holum- Furer
Jane Holum- Furer1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Sanctions are in order @MassBar @PlymouthCtyDAO

Фото профиля Adam Lally's Resignation
Adam Lally's Resignation1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries holy shit

Фото профиля JNA
JNA1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries I literally fucking GASPED

Фото профиля Chris
Chris1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Infuriating!!!!!

Фото профиля Beach girl 99
Beach girl 991 месяц назад

@defense_diaries They are desperate! Unfortunately they are destroying their reputations with their absurdity.

Фото профиля BIG JAEL
BIG JAEL1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries The fact she stuttered saying that lowk makes it worse

Фото профиля WisconsinMonica
WisconsinMonica1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Well they’re parading a priest around so….

Фото профиля Kelly💚🌴
Kelly💚🌴1 месяц назад

No one would’ve known there was a priest there if it weren’t for the prosecution filling a motion to get name and addresses of anyone that the bailiffs allowed back there . “She literally said well Dr Azizil and a priest is going back there” and that’s when the judges said woah wait

Фото профиля GlammaSooz
GlammaSooz1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Is Sprague aware that bearing false witness violates the 10 Commandments?

Фото профиля M Lewis
M Lewis1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries The Commonwealth of Massachusetts can’t seem to make it through a trial without some kind of misconduct!🤷‍♂️

Фото профиля IdaLee
IdaLee1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Bruhhhh

Фото профиля Bruce
Bruce1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Yes DA prosecutor attorneys are a joke. One wearing a ribbon as a prop the other is a frustrated woman trying to put words in Mother in laws mouth now the medical examiner

Фото профиля A Deplorable
A Deplorable1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries The question alone did inflame- against the prosecution. These prosecutors are like the worst prosecutors in the country. Lindsay couldn't have been luckier if she tried

Фото профиля Leon Larkin
Leon Larkin1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries I mean, if psychiatric religion is admissible for the defense it only seems fair Catholic religion should be admissible for the prosecution. If church and state are to be separate only objective facts should be considered, not subjective interpretations of the facts.

Фото профиля Kathy Duke
Kathy Duke1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Strike Three ! These two roller derby contestants are just horrible. Are they married ? Are they Moms?

Фото профиля J & M🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
J & M🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries And than both Prosecutor was smiling with each other

Фото профиля christine
christine1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Disgraceful

Фото профиля Cherly B
Cherly B1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Wondering if these ADAs celebrated Healy legalizing infanticide.

Фото профиля Jinksgirl 🇺🇲
Jinksgirl 🇺🇲1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries I can't hate these two ADA's enough.

Фото профиля Just Another Take
Just Another Take1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries Why does this question bother you?

Фото профиля Patty Becker
Patty Becker1 месяц назад

@defense_diaries She's desperate... pulling out the stops because she knows she lost this case weeks ago.

Похожие видео

The judge in Lindsay Clancy's trial today specially instructed jurors not to consider religion after a prosecutor asked Clancy's former mother in law if she knows the Catholic Church considers murder a "mortal sin." Susan Clancy, a labor and delivery nurse, testified as a defense witness. Assistant District Attorney Shanan L. Buckingham cross-examined her about Lindsay's condition in the months before she killed her three children on Jan. 23, 2024. She asked Susan near the end of the exam, "Are you an active member in the Catholic Church?" and Susan answered, "Yes." "So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin?" Buckingham asked. Judge William Sullivan interjected: "Counsel, can I see you over here?" The side bar lasted about 65 seconds. The courtroom camera didn't record the beginning of Judge Sullivan's instruction, but there's no way he didn't tell the jury anything other than not to consider the witness' religion when deciding the case. "And what that means is you are not to consider it for any reason or any purpose. Okay?" said Sullivan, who presides in Plymouth County Superior Court in Massachusetts. Buckingham is the lead prosecutor in the case against Clancy, who is charged with three counts of murder. Clancy's defense is that she's not guilty because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and didn't understand her actions so can't be held criminally responsible. Buckingham has been a licensed lawyer in Massachusetts since November 2011. She earned her law degree from Northeastern University School of Law.

Meghann Cuniff

44,114 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The big issue in Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal of his convictions and 50-month prison sentence is whether Judge Arun Subramanian wrongly increased the sentence because of fraud and coercion that shouldn't have been considered under a new sentencing guideline that prohibits judges from factoring in acquitted conduct. Subramanian said when sentencing Combs last October that the fraud and coercion enhancement was based on conduct related to Combs' convictions for transportation for prostitution, instead of only relating to his acquittals for racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard argument on Thursday (April 9) in New York City. Combs' lawyer Alexandra Shapiro argued Judge Subramanian cited incidents that aren't actually connected to prostitution, including Combs threatening to release sexually explicit videos of Casandra "Cassie" Ventura during a flight home from the Cannes Film Festival. "There's no evidence that, even on the airplane, they were planning a so-called freak off. And moreover, there was no evidence in the record that there was a freak off other than Ms. Ventura's testimony," Shapiro said. "Wait, wait a minute. Pause, pause, pause. You just said there was no evidence other than a witness's testimony? Which is another way of saying there was trial evidence," said Judge William J. Nardini, a 2019 Donald Trump appointee. Shapiro said "not only was this argued to the jury in the summation, but the jury sent back a note asking for quote, 'Casandra Ventura testimony regarding Cannes and the events immediately following.'" "And we know that the jury rejected the notion ... that there was coercion and connection with that incident," Shapiro said. Nardini said he thought Shapiro was "just arguing a different thing, that the defendant did not have an intent for purposes of the Mann Act ... because then you were saying there was no evidence that a freak off even happened." The judge said Shaprio's argument is going beyond lack of coercion to "now you're saying they also found that none of this even happened. And I don't see how that follows." "That's not what I said," Shapiro said. "Well, you said there was no evidence that the freak off happened, except for Ventura's testimony. And then you were trying to argue the jury necessarily rejected Ventura's testimony. And I guess you're saying, because they rejected the argument of the government, that it was her testimony showed there was coercion, they must have rejected every single thing that Ventura said," the judge said. "That's not what I said," Shapiro said again. "Well, that was the implication. So let's back up," Nardini said. "Well that's not what I meant to imply," Shapiro said. "The whole Mann Act charges were basically an afterthought at this trial. They took up almost no time. The government relied principally on these two charts. And if you look at government exhibit 1402," Shapiro said as Nardini interjected. "I understand that, and you made that point very well in your brief. So isn't your argument really that what the government is doing here is mixing and matching. You're taking evidence from the claims that were acquitted to try to support the the Mann Act sentencing for purposes of the Mann Act, but none of that was presented to the jury for purposes of the Mann Act. Is that a summation of what, where —" Nardini said. "That's fair," Shapiro said. The judges have not yet issued their ruling. It could be at least a few weeks.

Meghann Cuniff

61,031 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The Yazidis are really starting to annoy me. To begin with, the people who liberated you, protected your honor, and welcomed you were the Kurds. Instead of thanking them, you belittle them?! This Yazidi claims that there is no Kurdish language and that it is actually the Êzdikî language. He also says that the original Kurds were Yazidis because the religion of the Kurds before Islam was Yazidism. (This narrative was promoted by the PKK.) He also claims that “we are older than the Kurds,” which is a lie. First, it is called the Kurdish language, and the Kurds have been mentioned for thousands of years, whereas the idea of a Yazidi nationality was established by the PKK in 2014 after what they call the “liberation.” No historical book has ever described the Yazidis as a nationality, and there was no one in the world a hundred years ago whose ethnicity was “Yazidi.” Second, the religion of the Kurds before Islam was Zoroastrianism, Yazdanism, or Christianity. There was no such thing as a religion called Yazidism at that time. Third, the Yazidi religion is originally a religion that deviated from Islam. They are followers of Adi ibn Musafir, the Arab Sunni Umayyad, who was praised by Ibn Taymiyyah. The tomb of Adi (Sheikh Adi) is located in Lalish today, and the Yazidis worship it. Fourth, when a Kurd calls you Kurds, it is because he loves you and sympathizes with you because of what happened to you. Otherwise, your entire sect is of no benefit to the Kurds. Finally, Sinjar is Kurdish and will remain Kurdish. People of other national identities will be expelled from it. And let me remind you that the backbone of Kurdish nationalism has always been, and still is, the Sunni Kurds, who are deeply devoted to the Kurdish nation.

لوند ⛰️

23,570 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Matt Walsh says temporary insanity is a myth, something from the movies. Millions of people heard him say it about the Lindsay Clancy case. In this video I respond as a psychiatrist, because I think he is asking a fair question and arriving at the wrong answer, and the difference matters enormously for how we understand this tragedy. His argument is intuitive: a functional, coherent person cannot suddenly lose all agency, commit an act like this, and then get it back. I take that seriously, and he is right that there is no lab test that can prove what was happening in someone's mind at a specific moment in the past. But that is not how the question actually gets decided. Juries integrate evidence, and in this case the evidence is unusual: months of medical records documenting a woman deteriorating on psychiatric medications while she and her husband told doctors she was getting worse, a rapid benzodiazepine taper, an antidepressant dose doubled the day before the tragedy, no motive, no history of violence, and a husband who lost his three children still standing by her. I walk through why I believe the medications drove what happened, and why I think Massachusetts' legal threshold points toward a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. I also respond to his framing of postpartum depression as largely an adjustment problem, hardest for the most selfish among us. The transition to motherhood is genuinely jarring, and he is not wrong that it demands the surrender of your own desires. But I have sat with too many struggling new mothers to accept selfishness as the explanation. What I see is isolation: mothers raising children far from family, without community, sleep deprived, and too often handed a prescription instead of support. I believe the enormous public interest in this case exists because so many women recognize a version of their own experience in it. And on the GoFundMe controversy, I explain why I think a grieving family seeking help through the worst circumstances imaginable deserves something better than our contempt. Whatever you conclude, this case deserves more than a culture war take. These children deserve to have the whole truth told about how this happened.

Dr. Josef

85,680 просмотров • 27 дней назад