正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Reddington: “And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a NOT GUILTY verdict.” Okay. So, my prediction was accurate. This is crazy. (Lindsay Clancy Trial)

Lindsay 🇺🇸

14,931 subscribers

25,441 次观看 • 5 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

WAIT WAIT WAIT... So Lindsay Clancy's lawyer just stood up in open court and revealed that the jury is split 11 to 1 for NOT GUILTY and that the holdout is a MALE????? How is that information being aired publicly while deliberations are still happening?!!!! "We have a person who looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them!" "And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict." "I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court."

WAIT WAIT WAIT... So Lindsay Clancy's lawyer just stood up in open court and revealed that the jury is split 11 to 1 for NOT GUILTY and that the holdout is a MALE????? How is that information being aired publicly while deliberations are still happening?!!!! "We have a person who looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them!" "And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict." "I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court."

Matt Van Swol

194,359 次观看 • 5 天前

LINDSAY CLANCY DEFENSE ACCUSES JUROR OF LYING UNDER OATH A dramatic exchange erupts in the Lindsay Clancy trial as defense attorney Kevin Reddington accuses a juror of lying under oath and refusing to apply the court’s reasonable doubt instructions. The defense claims the jury is essentially “11 to 1” and argues that one juror has acknowledged doubt but is refusing to apply it when considering a not guilty verdict. Reddington tells the judge the alleged conduct goes beyond a disagreement during deliberations, accusing the juror of making a false statement under oath The judge is asked to intervene as the jury remains deadlocked. For more updates, watch OAN on OAN Live.

LINDSAY CLANCY DEFENSE ACCUSES JUROR OF LYING UNDER OATH A dramatic exchange erupts in the Lindsay Clancy trial as defense attorney Kevin Reddington accuses a juror of lying under oath and refusing to apply the court’s reasonable doubt instructions. The defense claims the jury is essentially “11 to 1” and argues that one juror has acknowledged doubt but is refusing to apply it when considering a not guilty verdict. Reddington tells the judge the alleged conduct goes beyond a disagreement during deliberations, accusing the juror of making a false statement under oath The judge is asked to intervene as the jury remains deadlocked. For more updates, watch OAN on OAN Live.

One America News

34,361 次观看 • 5 天前

Reddington: "You're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt" Judge Sullivan is adamant that he is not glossing over this issue, yet he decides he's "not going to reiterate reasonable doubt".

Reddington: "You're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt" Judge Sullivan is adamant that he is not glossing over this issue, yet he decides he's "not going to reiterate reasonable doubt".

Ivanka Gog

28,434 次观看 • 5 天前

BREAKING NEWS🚨🚨🚨; There is one juror who is holding out against 11 jurors who are in favor of not guilty (straight up) in the Lindsay Clancy case. Oh my word. This is incredible. Reddington wants the juror removed (judge denied). Jury was given "reasonable doubt" instruction and sent back to deliberate further.

BREAKING NEWS🚨🚨🚨; There is one juror who is holding out against 11 jurors who are in favor of not guilty (straight up) in the Lindsay Clancy case. Oh my word. This is incredible. Reddington wants the juror removed (judge denied). Jury was given "reasonable doubt" instruction and sent back to deliberate further.

Grant Smith Ellis

23,861 次观看 • 6 天前

🚨 JUST NOW: It's being predicted that some jurors are NOT sure that Lindsay Clancy is guilty beyond "reasonable doubt," after the judge just instructed them on what that precisely means "The jury seems to agree on the facts but not whether it rises to beyond reasonable doubt." Which juror GENUINELY thinks killing her 3 kids and admitting it with ample evidence isn't enough?! This is utter insanity, she ADMITTED TO THE CRIME!!

🚨 JUST NOW: It's being predicted that some jurors are NOT sure that Lindsay Clancy is guilty beyond "reasonable doubt," after the judge just instructed them on what that precisely means "The jury seems to agree on the facts but not whether it rises to beyond reasonable doubt." Which juror GENUINELY thinks killing her 3 kids and admitting it with ample evidence isn't enough?! This is utter insanity, she ADMITTED TO THE CRIME!!

Eric Daugherty

66,861 次观看 • 6 天前

BREAKING: When court resumed today, Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington addressed the judge after a second note was received from the jury regarding concerns over an 11-1 split: "I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on a jury is so courageous as to come forward on behalf of 11 jurors," Reddington told the judge, "and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention, 'has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states.'"

BREAKING: When court resumed today, Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington addressed the judge after a second note was received from the jury regarding concerns over an 11-1 split: "I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on a jury is so courageous as to come forward on behalf of 11 jurors," Reddington told the judge, "and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention, 'has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states.'"

CBS News

145,649 次观看 • 5 天前

He confirms a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility" Kevin Reddington did one hell of a job instilling doubt in the Lindsay Clancy trial. I've been saying this whole time, CW did not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

He confirms a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility" Kevin Reddington did one hell of a job instilling doubt in the Lindsay Clancy trial. I've been saying this whole time, CW did not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gen Just Law

183,625 次观看 • 9 天前

Justice for the kids 🙏 Judge says we will do further inquiry of the juror Judge Sullivan fires back at atty Kevin Reddington for insinuating his verbiage on "Reasonable Doubt" was soft Hit that like button if you want the jury to return a guilty AF verdict on Lindsay Clancy

Justice for the kids 🙏 Judge says we will do further inquiry of the juror Judge Sullivan fires back at atty Kevin Reddington for insinuating his verbiage on "Reasonable Doubt" was soft Hit that like button if you want the jury to return a guilty AF verdict on Lindsay Clancy

@Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸

13,102 次观看 • 5 天前

What’s going to happen next with the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial? Mark O’Mara, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, says he’s never seen this before: “There's no question, though it is my supposition, that that note said we are 11 to 1 for acquittal. And we can't get there because of this one juror.”

What’s going to happen next with the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial? Mark O’Mara, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, says he’s never seen this before: “There's no question, though it is my supposition, that that note said we are 11 to 1 for acquittal. And we can't get there because of this one juror.”

Erin Burnett OutFront

10,634 次观看 • 6 天前

Three jurors on the Lindsay Clancy case spoke with NBC Boston. According to the jurors, 11 jury members wanted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. The holdout juror “admitted he had reasonable doubt” and then said “but I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty…”

Three jurors on the Lindsay Clancy case spoke with NBC Boston. According to the jurors, 11 jury members wanted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. The holdout juror “admitted he had reasonable doubt” and then said “but I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty…”

Anna Bower

234,997 次观看 • 1 天前

Let’s get this straight on Lindsay Clancy. We do NOT know the jury split for certain. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington is the one floating 11–1 his way, and he’s apparently reading that into a jury note he saw or heard. That doesn’t make it gospel. It makes it his spin. What we do know: one juror is locked against the other eleven. The majority wants that person gone. The judge interviewed them one by one instead. Short of a juror saying “I don’t care about the law,” that holdout stays. Thought exercise Will Cain ran: if eleven are racing toward not guilty by reason of insanity and one still sees murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt… that one person can force a mistrial. That’s why they’re asking for reasonable doubt re-read. That’s why Reddington is sweating. Massachusetts makes it even harder, the government has to prove she wasn’t insane. No blood test for her mind that day. Just experts, atmospherics, and one juror who may refuse to play along. She’s still not convicted. And her kids are still gone.

Let’s get this straight on Lindsay Clancy. We do NOT know the jury split for certain. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington is the one floating 11–1 his way, and he’s apparently reading that into a jury note he saw or heard. That doesn’t make it gospel. It makes it his spin. What we do know: one juror is locked against the other eleven. The majority wants that person gone. The judge interviewed them one by one instead. Short of a juror saying “I don’t care about the law,” that holdout stays. Thought exercise Will Cain ran: if eleven are racing toward not guilty by reason of insanity and one still sees murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt… that one person can force a mistrial. That’s why they’re asking for reasonable doubt re-read. That’s why Reddington is sweating. Massachusetts makes it even harder, the government has to prove she wasn’t insane. No blood test for her mind that day. Just experts, atmospherics, and one juror who may refuse to play along. She’s still not convicted. And her kids are still gone.

Gunther Eagleman™

100,831 次观看 • 6 天前

Black woman, who spent months covering Lindsay Clancy trial, is thankful for the lone juror, who was a MAN, made sure Clancy didn’t walk free with a not guilty verdict! A single man made sure this triple murderer DID NOT walk free!!! GOD BLESS THIS MAN!

Black woman, who spent months covering Lindsay Clancy trial, is thankful for the lone juror, who was a MAN, made sure Clancy didn’t walk free with a not guilty verdict! A single man made sure this triple murderer DID NOT walk free!!! GOD BLESS THIS MAN!

Just Jen ℞ 🫡🇺🇸

81,515 次观看 • 3 天前

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.

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

26,368 次观看 • 13 天前

JUST IN - A single juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial is allegedly refusing to listen to the law and instructions by the judge on reasonable doubt, raising the risk of a mistrial. Lindsay Clancy's defense is asking for the juror to be removed.

JUST IN - A single juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial is allegedly refusing to listen to the law and instructions by the judge on reasonable doubt, raising the risk of a mistrial. Lindsay Clancy's defense is asking for the juror to be removed.

Disclose.tv

2,361,829 次观看 • 6 天前

BREAKING: The foreperson in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial just delivered a note asking for one juror to be removed for not following the rules regarding the law's definition of reasonable doubt. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington then asked for that juror to be removed. The prosecution, however, stated that it felt the judge's instructions to the jury were sufficient, and the existing jury is now continuing to deliberate, as instructed by the judge.

BREAKING: The foreperson in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial just delivered a note asking for one juror to be removed for not following the rules regarding the law's definition of reasonable doubt. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington then asked for that juror to be removed. The prosecution, however, stated that it felt the judge's instructions to the jury were sufficient, and the existing jury is now continuing to deliberate, as instructed by the judge.

CBS News

293,207 次观看 • 6 天前

The Lindsay Clancy trial has taken an unusual turn, CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi says, after the judge instructed the jury to return to deliberations, after the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge that raised questions about a juror not following the law on reasonable doubt. The judge is expected to ask more questions about that note and the state of deliberations Friday, Polisi said.

The Lindsay Clancy trial has taken an unusual turn, CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi says, after the judge instructed the jury to return to deliberations, after the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge that raised questions about a juror not following the law on reasonable doubt. The judge is expected to ask more questions about that note and the state of deliberations Friday, Polisi said.

CBS Mornings

32,993 次观看 • 5 天前

This is for the fools claiming that Lindsay Clancy has admitted guilt Here is the judge telling the jury that it is up to them to determine if Lindsay is guilty at all… so many piled on me when I shared the video of her clearly saying not guilty to every charge in the post inditement charges. (See below) So ask yourself why those right wing influencers would be deliberately lying to you and calling people crazy for thinking that it could be the husband when its a real possibility that they come back with a not guilty verdict?!? Credit: mystical_juju

This is for the fools claiming that Lindsay Clancy has admitted guilt Here is the judge telling the jury that it is up to them to determine if Lindsay is guilty at all… so many piled on me when I shared the video of her clearly saying not guilty to every charge in the post inditement charges. (See below) So ask yourself why those right wing influencers would be deliberately lying to you and calling people crazy for thinking that it could be the husband when its a real possibility that they come back with a not guilty verdict?!? Credit: mystical_juju

Gwen

28,382 次观看 • 16 天前

🚨In no uncertain terms: based on the evidence, I believe Lindsey Clancy is guilty. A jury’s job is not to decide this case on sympathy. It is to follow the evidence and law. And if emotion enters that jury room, remember Cora, Dawson and Callan. Three children are dead.

🚨In no uncertain terms: based on the evidence, I believe Lindsey Clancy is guilty. A jury’s job is not to decide this case on sympathy. It is to follow the evidence and law. And if emotion enters that jury room, remember Cora, Dawson and Callan. Three children are dead.

Mehek Cooke🇺🇸

35,713 次观看 • 8 天前

.Viva Frei to Jack Posobiec on the possible verdict for the Lindsay Clancy trial: "I will not be shocked if it's a finding of 'not guilty' because any juror on the fence has their out to do it because she'll still be institutionalized."

.Viva Frei to Jack Posobiec on the possible verdict for the Lindsay Clancy trial: "I will not be shocked if it's a finding of 'not guilty' because any juror on the fence has their out to do it because she'll still be institutionalized."

Human Events

13,376 次观看 • 13 天前

🚨 BREAKING: It appears there is ONE LONE JUROR who is BLOCKING a NOT GUILTY verdict for Lindsay Clancy What a LEGEND This man is SINGLE HANDEDLY preventing Lindsay from getting away with MURDERING three children.

🚨 BREAKING: It appears there is ONE LONE JUROR who is BLOCKING a NOT GUILTY verdict for Lindsay Clancy What a LEGEND This man is SINGLE HANDEDLY preventing Lindsay from getting away with MURDERING three children.

Nick Sortor

2,564,898 次观看 • 5 天前