正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Lindsay Clancy's lawyer... Initial trial's opening statement: "She knows that she killed these children." Today's Hearing: "Where is the evidence that she did this?" Another crazy walkback by Kevin Reddington🤡

59,532 次观看 • 3 天前 •via X (Twitter)

27 条评论

Cathy Russon 的头像
Cathy Russon3 天前

Opening statements are not evidence. :)

Umm Imagine 的头像
Umm Imagine3 天前

how'd he come up with that line though? 🤔

AB 的头像
AB3 天前

Lawyers gonna lie. Despicable liar

Umm Imagine 的头像
Umm Imagine3 天前

yeah. if he was going to try this, he should've done it the initial trial. he just looks desperate now.

friskyturtleluv97 的头像
friskyturtleluv973 天前

He's not beholdened to his trial 1 strategy. He's putting the burden of proof back where it should have been from the beginning.

Umm Imagine 的头像
Umm Imagine3 天前

why wouldn't he start with that?

friskyturtleluv97 的头像
friskyturtleluv973 天前

It was his argument. It's not his fault you are uneducated on this law stuff.

Umm Imagine 的头像
Umm Imagine3 天前

are you saying a lawyer made a claim that his client murdered three children without having any supporting evidence?

friskyturtleluv97 的头像
friskyturtleluv973 天前

That was never said.

Gina G 的头像
Gina G3 天前

In the U.K. we call this misleading the court. You can’t run a whole case on the basis of telling a jury she heard voices only to come back and say there’s no evidence she killed them. If she said she did it and voices told her to, that’s the evidence.

GrammyK 的头像
GrammyK3 天前

Why didn’t the judge himself call him out on changing his entire case theory? Unbelievable!

Farttelligence 的头像
Farttelligence3 天前

You must be stupid since this was always their position but the corrupt DAs office wouldn’t allow him to argue this in court. Once again you trolls know nothing and push false narratives and you all can go to hell

Linda Hamonou 的头像
Linda Hamonou3 天前

The actual sentence in the opening statement: "And they would bring their evidence in front of a jury that she knows that she killed these children.“ Very different with the first part, isn’t it? If you were right that she did it, you wouldn’t need to lie to make us believe it.

kjr557 的头像
kjr5573 天前

Missing context “they’re going to bring evidence of she knows that she killed these children and we will sit here and listen to their evidence” is not the same as admitting guilt. He’s describing the process of hearing the government’s evidence, not saying Lindsay killed her kids

IdaLee 的头像
IdaLee3 天前

Go ahead and listen to the full opening statement because the selective editing is working hardddd here

SkEptikalOne 的头像
SkEptikalOne3 天前

@lawyer4laws I hope the black male juror from the 1st trial sues Reddington into oblivion and he gets debarred.

SAY BYE BYE😊 的头像
SAY BYE BYE😊3 天前

SHE NEVER CONFESSED SHE WAS TOLD!!!!

GodFatherOfChaos 的头像
GodFatherOfChaos3 天前

Mistrial Law

Knallhart 的头像
Knallhart3 天前

In America, if your fetus has some kind of mental defect, killling the fetus is seen as mercy....BUT if you are a murderer with some kind of mental defect...it is mercy to keep them alive. The left is psychotic.

Taryn N 的头像
Taryn N3 天前

He realized the public us stupider than he could have ever imagined. If they went through all the evidence piece-by-piece in court, most of the jurors would throw her in jail.

Kvitka 🌻🌻🌻 的头像
Kvitka 🌻🌻🌻3 天前

Mindblowing, some defense attorneys credit Reddington with being “MASTERCLASS” 🤣🤣🤣

Hank Stall 的头像
Hank Stall3 天前

Show me the evidence you space cadet. She didn’t do it

JB 的头像
JB3 天前

Buffoon

Judith Seymour 的头像
Judith Seymour3 天前

Clown 🤡

Talot ☦️🇷🇺🇺🇸 的头像
Talot ☦️🇷🇺🇺🇸3 天前

If she wasnt guilty, she would be begging for a bullet daily.

MamaRAM 的头像
MamaRAM3 天前

And, as someone else mentioned, he asked Trump to pardon her. Why would she need a pardon if he says she didn't do it? Such a joke. The sad thing is Cora, Dawson and Callan, who they might've become, the lives they could've lived, being totally forgotten.

Qui êtes-vous ? 的头像
Qui êtes-vous ?3 天前

👍

相关视频

The most important thing to understand before closing arguments today is what Massachusetts law actually requires, because the legal posture of this case has been wildly misrepresented. The Commonwealth must FIRST prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy committed the alleged acts. Only then does criminal responsibility become the question. There is NO stipulation before this jury that Lindsay killed her children. Her plea is NOT GUILTY. Reddington has not conceded that she killed them either. You’ve probably seen his opening statement quoted as, “she knows that she killed these children.” Except that’s not what he said. His actual statement was, “And they would bring their evidence in front of a jury that she knows that she killed these children. We’ll sit here, listen to the evidence, but I suggest to you that the issue of consideration is what was going on in that woman’s mind.” He was describing what the COMMONWEALTH would attempt to prove. Cutting off the beginning completely changes the meaning. The civil filings don’t change this either. They are not evidence in this criminal trial and are not before this jury. Reddington twice sought to bifurcate the trial so whether Lindsay committed the acts and whether she was criminally responsible could be considered separately. The judge denied those requests. He also requested a Bowden instruction regarding deficiencies in the police investigation. The judge declined to give the specific instruction, but Reddington can still argue that those investigative failures create reasonable doubt during closing. This case has become a complete cluster of selectively edited quotes, legal misunderstandings, assumptions repeated as facts, and emotion substituted for evidence. Strip all of that away and the jury’s job is straightforward: What does the evidence actually prove? Has the Commonwealth proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay committed these crimes? And ONLY if it has, was she criminally responsible? Your feelings about Lindsay do not change the burden of proof. Cora, Dawson and Callan deserved a thorough investigation and a case proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatever this verdict is, I pray those three precious children ultimately receive the complete truth and justice they deserve.

Kylie Jane Kremer

27,771 次观看 • 1 个月前