Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

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.show more

Kylie Jane Kremer

117,770 subscribers

25,475 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Prediction time, because I’m not afraid to shoot my shot. I predict the jury will find Lindsay Clancy insane (not criminally responsible). There is also a possibility of a hung jury and a mistrial, but if that happens, the vote will be significantly in favor of the defense with only a few prosecution holdouts. My prediction is based on the law in Massachusetts, which requires to prosecution to prove a defendant is criminally responsible (sane) beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high burden and different than many states and federal law that put the burden on the defense to prove insanity by a preponderance or clear and convincing evidence. The defense presented enough evidence to satisfy both prongs of the insanity test: (1) not knowing right from wrong (thinking her kids would be safe), and (2) not being able to control her actions (male voice commanding her). Either is sufficient for insanity under the Model Penal Code, and the defense has raised reasonable doubt for both. 9 out of 12 female jurors is a good ratio for the defense too. The reality is that Clancy has more support among women. I spoke to Fox News about the possible jury verdicts. Spoiler alert: Lindsay being found not guilty and Patrick being prosecuted is not one of them. If you really believe that Patrick did it, then you may be insane.

Prediction time, because I’m not afraid to shoot my shot. I predict the jury will find Lindsay Clancy insane (not criminally responsible). There is also a possibility of a hung jury and a mistrial, but if that happens, the vote will be significantly in favor of the defense with only a few prosecution holdouts. My prediction is based on the law in Massachusetts, which requires to prosecution to prove a defendant is criminally responsible (sane) beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high burden and different than many states and federal law that put the burden on the defense to prove insanity by a preponderance or clear and convincing evidence. The defense presented enough evidence to satisfy both prongs of the insanity test: (1) not knowing right from wrong (thinking her kids would be safe), and (2) not being able to control her actions (male voice commanding her). Either is sufficient for insanity under the Model Penal Code, and the defense has raised reasonable doubt for both. 9 out of 12 female jurors is a good ratio for the defense too. The reality is that Clancy has more support among women. I spoke to Fox News about the possible jury verdicts. Spoiler alert: Lindsay being found not guilty and Patrick being prosecuted is not one of them. If you really believe that Patrick did it, then you may be insane.

Neama Rahmani

129,671 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

🚨 BIG ruling in the Lindsay Clancy trial: The judge will allow the jury to consider manslaughter in addition to: • First-degree murder • Second-degree murder • Not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility So the jury now has a middle-ground option if they believe Clancy was criminally responsible, but the evidence does not support murder. The judge also denied the defense’s requested Bowden instruction regarding alleged flaws in the police investigation. The manslaughter ruling is the bigger development. 👀

🚨 BIG ruling in the Lindsay Clancy trial: The judge will allow the jury to consider manslaughter in addition to: • First-degree murder • Second-degree murder • Not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility So the jury now has a middle-ground option if they believe Clancy was criminally responsible, but the evidence does not support murder. The judge also denied the defense’s requested Bowden instruction regarding alleged flaws in the police investigation. The manslaughter ruling is the bigger development. 👀

Lindsay 🇺🇸

74,650 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

🚨🚨 Juror in #RobertRoberson’s trial just testified that she now believes he is INNOCENT, that the entire case against him was 'shaken baby syndrome' - not beating - and that the jury did not have all the evidence. I keep being told to believe the jury. So I went and found an actual juror from 2003. She couldn’t wait to testify. Here’s what she had to say: Fact: this was ONLY a shaken baby case. Fact: the prosecution never gave evidence that Nikki was beaten. Fact: the jury knew nothing about the severity of Nikki’s illness and her extensive history of illness. Fact: the jury did NOT hear everything they needed to in order to make a correct decision in this case. Fact: this juror, having learned the new scientific evidence, now believes Robert is INNOCENT and would NOT have voted to convict. I believe this juror, who knows more about the trial than those opining on Twitter. Justice demands a new trial. Watch 👇 #txlege

🚨🚨 Juror in #RobertRoberson’s trial just testified that she now believes he is INNOCENT, that the entire case against him was 'shaken baby syndrome' - not beating - and that the jury did not have all the evidence. I keep being told to believe the jury. So I went and found an actual juror from 2003. She couldn’t wait to testify. Here’s what she had to say: Fact: this was ONLY a shaken baby case. Fact: the prosecution never gave evidence that Nikki was beaten. Fact: the jury knew nothing about the severity of Nikki’s illness and her extensive history of illness. Fact: the jury did NOT hear everything they needed to in order to make a correct decision in this case. Fact: this juror, having learned the new scientific evidence, now believes Robert is INNOCENT and would NOT have voted to convict. I believe this juror, who knows more about the trial than those opining on Twitter. Justice demands a new trial. Watch 👇 #txlege

Brian Harrison

27,671 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Lindsay Clancy trial enters a critical stretch as dueling experts offer sharply different accounts of whether she understood her actions were wrong when she killed her three young children. The defense says postpartum psychosis, medication, and command hallucinations left her unable to control what she was doing. But prosecutors argue Clancy was not suffering from psychosis and point to what they describe as methodical actions leading up to killing her children. Now the case is moving toward closing arguments, with the jury ultimately deciding whether Clancy is criminally responsible. | Nate Foy

The Lindsay Clancy trial enters a critical stretch as dueling experts offer sharply different accounts of whether she understood her actions were wrong when she killed her three young children. The defense says postpartum psychosis, medication, and command hallucinations left her unable to control what she was doing. But prosecutors argue Clancy was not suffering from psychosis and point to what they describe as methodical actions leading up to killing her children. Now the case is moving toward closing arguments, with the jury ultimately deciding whether Clancy is criminally responsible. | Nate Foy

Fox News

142,208 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a UNANIMOUS verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

Kyle Becker

5,835,202 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Nancy Grace says the state has proven its case against Lindsay Clancy “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” pointing to prosecutors’ timeline as evidence the killings were methodically planned: “I do believe the state has proven its case, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt. This prosecutor laid out, in excruciating detail in the opening statement, exactly the plan to kill her children. And it started around 4 p.m. that afternoon, when she began searching online for MiraLAX, even calling a CVS to make sure they had it so her husband would go there to get it and not disturb her. She went on Apple Maps and made sure of the time it would take him to go get the pickup. And then, as he was leaving, she said, ‘Oh yeah, by the way, can you pick up MiraLAX?’ She had been planning it online for over an hour and then acted like it was an afterthought. Under the timeline, she had to stand over Cora, Dawson, and Callan’s limp bodies for one to two minutes as she strangled each one, after an hour and a half of planning.”

Nancy Grace says the state has proven its case against Lindsay Clancy “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” pointing to prosecutors’ timeline as evidence the killings were methodically planned: “I do believe the state has proven its case, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt. This prosecutor laid out, in excruciating detail in the opening statement, exactly the plan to kill her children. And it started around 4 p.m. that afternoon, when she began searching online for MiraLAX, even calling a CVS to make sure they had it so her husband would go there to get it and not disturb her. She went on Apple Maps and made sure of the time it would take him to go get the pickup. And then, as he was leaving, she said, ‘Oh yeah, by the way, can you pick up MiraLAX?’ She had been planning it online for over an hour and then acted like it was an afterthought. Under the timeline, she had to stand over Cora, Dawson, and Callan’s limp bodies for one to two minutes as she strangled each one, after an hour and a half of planning.”

Sean Hannity 🇺🇸

421,196 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

Before the jury entered the courtroom on Tuesday, Lindsay Clancy agreed to a "stipulation of facts," speaking for the first time in her murder trial. She was sworn in by a court officer and answered questions from the judge, confirming that she and the prosecution agree on certain facts in the case. "This stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens, if not more, witnesses to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bands, DNA, all of that," defense attorney Reddington said. "Rather than have days of testimony, the stipulation will avoid that."

Before the jury entered the courtroom on Tuesday, Lindsay Clancy agreed to a "stipulation of facts," speaking for the first time in her murder trial. She was sworn in by a court officer and answered questions from the judge, confirming that she and the prosecution agree on certain facts in the case. "This stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens, if not more, witnesses to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bands, DNA, all of that," defense attorney Reddington said. "Rather than have days of testimony, the stipulation will avoid that."

CBS News

31,514 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

The Lindsay Clancy trial is almost in the hands of the jury. In Massachusetts, the prosecution carries the burden of proving she was not legally insane when she killed her three children. That’s a high bar. Experts on both sides looked at the same evidence and reached opposite conclusions. The defense says psychosis. The prosecution says she understood what she was doing. Jurors have seen the autopsy photos and heard the 911 call — evidence the public hasn’t. Whatever the verdict, three young children are gone forever. Their lives still demand accountability.

The Lindsay Clancy trial is almost in the hands of the jury. In Massachusetts, the prosecution carries the burden of proving she was not legally insane when she killed her three children. That’s a high bar. Experts on both sides looked at the same evidence and reached opposite conclusions. The defense says psychosis. The prosecution says she understood what she was doing. Jurors have seen the autopsy photos and heard the 911 call — evidence the public hasn’t. Whatever the verdict, three young children are gone forever. Their lives still demand accountability.

Gunther Eagleman™

30,307 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

NEW: Lindsay Clancy's defense is nearing the end of its case as jurors hear competing accounts over one of the trial's biggest questions: Did she hear a voice commanding her to kill her three children? Three defense witnesses say Clancy described a male voice giving her that command. But prosecutors highlight what they say is a critical gap: the alleged voices do not appear in her medical records. The defense is expected to rest today, with prosecutors then calling three rebuttal witnesses. The prosecution argues Clancy deliberately killed her children and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time. Closing arguments are expected early next week.

NEW: Lindsay Clancy's defense is nearing the end of its case as jurors hear competing accounts over one of the trial's biggest questions: Did she hear a voice commanding her to kill her three children? Three defense witnesses say Clancy described a male voice giving her that command. But prosecutors highlight what they say is a critical gap: the alleged voices do not appear in her medical records. The defense is expected to rest today, with prosecutors then calling three rebuttal witnesses. The prosecution argues Clancy deliberately killed her children and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time. Closing arguments are expected early next week.

Fox News

176,945 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

Let’s listen to attorney Baron Coleman to see what he thinks about ”the mountain of evidence” that was promised to the public. There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy involved at all in this case. I am not suggesting that. The question is if you/me/anyone/the jury would send a person to death IF (1) there isn’t enough substance to convince a jury about ’guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ AND (2) there’s no alternative assassin presented. Hopefully the answer is ’no’ (because that could be you/me/anyone/the jury sitting in Tyler Robinson’s chair). My point is that the trial is about Tyler Robinson’s guilt. The defense doesn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Charlie Kirk to prove his guilt (just like the defense in the OJ Simpson case didn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Nicole Brown). It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt and that’s what will ultimately matter in the trial.

Let’s listen to attorney Baron Coleman to see what he thinks about ”the mountain of evidence” that was promised to the public. There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy involved at all in this case. I am not suggesting that. The question is if you/me/anyone/the jury would send a person to death IF (1) there isn’t enough substance to convince a jury about ’guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ AND (2) there’s no alternative assassin presented. Hopefully the answer is ’no’ (because that could be you/me/anyone/the jury sitting in Tyler Robinson’s chair). My point is that the trial is about Tyler Robinson’s guilt. The defense doesn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Charlie Kirk to prove his guilt (just like the defense in the OJ Simpson case didn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Nicole Brown). It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt and that’s what will ultimately matter in the trial.

Turtle (𝔦, 𝔦)

10,753 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

HAPPENING NOW: A dramatic courtroom moment during closing arguments of the Lindsay Clancy trial, as defense attorney Kevin Reddington tells jurors the prosecution has "ripped the soul" out of the mother who admitted to killing her children. Reddington argues his client was not acting in her right mind when she killed her children, while blasting the prosecution's case, the experts brought in to testify, and blaming the medication she was taking at the time.

HAPPENING NOW: A dramatic courtroom moment during closing arguments of the Lindsay Clancy trial, as defense attorney Kevin Reddington tells jurors the prosecution has "ripped the soul" out of the mother who admitted to killing her children. Reddington argues his client was not acting in her right mind when she killed her children, while blasting the prosecution's case, the experts brought in to testify, and blaming the medication she was taking at the time.

Fox News

415,506 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

Jack Posobiec contradicted himself in real time. He admitted the prosecution carries the burden, then demanded Tyler Robinson’s defense prove he was somewhere else. That flips the entire justice system upside down. The defense does not have to prove Tyler was absent. The prosecution has to prove he was there and committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Their argument is basically: “We know you do not have to prove your innocence, but why haven’t you proved your innocence?” That is like accusing Jack of robbing a bank, then treating his missing dinner receipt as evidence of guilt. No alibi is not proof of presence. Silence is not guilt. Cabot asked the wrong question. The real question is simple. What reliable evidence places Tyler Robinson on that campus? #DueProcess #BurdenOfProof #Justice

Jack Posobiec contradicted himself in real time. He admitted the prosecution carries the burden, then demanded Tyler Robinson’s defense prove he was somewhere else. That flips the entire justice system upside down. The defense does not have to prove Tyler was absent. The prosecution has to prove he was there and committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Their argument is basically: “We know you do not have to prove your innocence, but why haven’t you proved your innocence?” That is like accusing Jack of robbing a bank, then treating his missing dinner receipt as evidence of guilt. No alibi is not proof of presence. Silence is not guilt. Cabot asked the wrong question. The real question is simple. What reliable evidence places Tyler Robinson on that campus? #DueProcess #BurdenOfProof #Justice

Mr. Gerald Wayne

30,890 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Lindsay Clancy killed her three children. She's admitted that she did, it's not in dispute. Instead, her trial centers on the question of whether she's not just guilty but culpable, or whether she was so deranged by postpartum psychosis that she can't be held criminally responsible for the murders. Online, a different trial is happening—and two camps have formed. Read Kat Rosenfield's full piece here:

Lindsay Clancy killed her three children. She's admitted that she did, it's not in dispute. Instead, her trial centers on the question of whether she's not just guilty but culpable, or whether she was so deranged by postpartum psychosis that she can't be held criminally responsible for the murders. Online, a different trial is happening—and two camps have formed. Read Kat Rosenfield's full piece here:

The Free Press

54,615 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

I caught up with Kevin Reddington after court. He said he wasn’t sure whether the Commonwealth would ask for a day off before or after closing arguments, but the judge has made that an option. Reddington also said he hasn’t been watching the jury during the trial, joking that he’s “afraid” to look, but with a laugh. He also told me Lindsay was surprised and emotional about the support she received outside the courthouse on Thursday. Los Angeles Magazine

Sensitive content

I caught up with Kevin Reddington after court. He said he wasn’t sure whether the Commonwealth would ask for a day off before or after closing arguments, but the judge has made that an option. Reddington also said he hasn’t been watching the jury during the trial, joking that he’s “afraid” to look, but with a laugh. He also told me Lindsay was surprised and emotional about the support she received outside the courthouse on Thursday. Los Angeles Magazine

Lauren Conlin

141,393 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

"This is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl." During closing arguments of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, her attorney Kevin Reddington blamed "the damn medicine and the lousy medical care she got" as he showed images of her with her children. Clancy is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children.

"This is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl." During closing arguments of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, her attorney Kevin Reddington blamed "the damn medicine and the lousy medical care she got" as he showed images of her with her children. Clancy is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children.

CBS News

108,122 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

BREAKING - SHOCKING: Judge Juan Merchan just instructed the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict and do not need to agree on what specifically occurred. He said the prosecution's broad approach is due to the absence of direct evidence that Donald Trump personally recorded the material in question. "They're making this very expansive," CNN legal analyst said, "because they don't have direct evidence that Donald Trump actually recorded that." WATCH She said, "Even if he himself did not falsify the business record, as long as, as they mentioned in the closing argument, if he made or caused the false entry. They're making this very expansive as part of the cast analogy. He doesn't have to be the person to have actually recorded it. That's very important because they don't have the direct evidence that Donald Trump actually recorded that information. You have invoices, you've got ledgers, you've got checks. And so as long as he was a part of it to make or cause it, they could find, if they choose to, beyond a reasonable doubt."

BREAKING - SHOCKING: Judge Juan Merchan just instructed the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict and do not need to agree on what specifically occurred. He said the prosecution's broad approach is due to the absence of direct evidence that Donald Trump personally recorded the material in question. "They're making this very expansive," CNN legal analyst said, "because they don't have direct evidence that Donald Trump actually recorded that." WATCH She said, "Even if he himself did not falsify the business record, as long as, as they mentioned in the closing argument, if he made or caused the false entry. They're making this very expansive as part of the cast analogy. He doesn't have to be the person to have actually recorded it. That's very important because they don't have the direct evidence that Donald Trump actually recorded that information. You have invoices, you've got ledgers, you've got checks. And so as long as he was a part of it to make or cause it, they could find, if they choose to, beyond a reasonable doubt."

Simon Ateba

2,906,836 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 PROSECUTOR SAYS LINDSAY CLANCY PLANNED IT Closing arguments in Plymouth: the state told the jury she methodically strangled her three kids, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and baby Callan — then left them on the floor like “broken toys.” They say she sent her husband out for takeout, checked how long he’d be gone, and did it while she had the house. Defense says postpartum psychosis and a pile of meds wiped out her judgment. She doesn’t deny she killed them. The fight is whether she was criminally responsible. Jury is out. Three children are gone. That’s the only fact that never changes.

🚨 PROSECUTOR SAYS LINDSAY CLANCY PLANNED IT Closing arguments in Plymouth: the state told the jury she methodically strangled her three kids, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and baby Callan — then left them on the floor like “broken toys.” They say she sent her husband out for takeout, checked how long he’d be gone, and did it while she had the house. Defense says postpartum psychosis and a pile of meds wiped out her judgment. She doesn’t deny she killed them. The fight is whether she was criminally responsible. Jury is out. Three children are gone. That’s the only fact that never changes.

Gunther Eagleman™

39,650 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

Some of the most heartbreaking testimony during the first day of Lindsay Clancy's murder trial was when her former husband, Patrick Clancy, was asked to talk about their three children: Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months). We saw video of the family celebrating at a birthday party and were shown photos of each of the children. Patrick spoke about the morning and afternoon before the kids were killed - that Lindsay took Cora to the doctor, then they built a snowman and everyone was having a really good day. As Patrick testified, Lindsay looked down at the ground and the two made very little eye contact. He has since remarried and is living in New York. Patrick will be back on the stand Wednesday morning as the trial continues. Lindsay Clancy has not denied killing the kids, but says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and should not be held criminally responsible

Some of the most heartbreaking testimony during the first day of Lindsay Clancy's murder trial was when her former husband, Patrick Clancy, was asked to talk about their three children: Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months). We saw video of the family celebrating at a birthday party and were shown photos of each of the children. Patrick spoke about the morning and afternoon before the kids were killed - that Lindsay took Cora to the doctor, then they built a snowman and everyone was having a really good day. As Patrick testified, Lindsay looked down at the ground and the two made very little eye contact. He has since remarried and is living in New York. Patrick will be back on the stand Wednesday morning as the trial continues. Lindsay Clancy has not denied killing the kids, but says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and should not be held criminally responsible

Nate Eaton

275,797 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Lindsay Clancy There is not one scintilla of proof that indicates that Lindsay's husband, Patrick, killed their children. The opposite is true. Every fact points to Lindsay, and in fact, she admits murdering them by strangling them with her exercise bands, one by one... The question at hand is: Why? Did she have a psychotic break or did she kill her children because she could not handle the strain and pressures she felt any longer and wanted to die and to take her children with her? What role did her medications have in her decision making? As of today, not one medical expert has testified that Lindsay had any signs of psychosis. We shall see what her hired expert has to say. Continuing to advocate for her children. They have no voice. They had no way to resist being strangled to death by their mother. Think about that kind of death. Think about what it would take to murder your children slowly and methodically in this way. It was not quick. Callan did not die for days. Why did she cut herself and jump if she didn't know what she did was wrong? Hoping her expert sheds some light on a case that is so very dark. #LindsayClancy Video credit: ChristyfromTO

Lindsay Clancy There is not one scintilla of proof that indicates that Lindsay's husband, Patrick, killed their children. The opposite is true. Every fact points to Lindsay, and in fact, she admits murdering them by strangling them with her exercise bands, one by one... The question at hand is: Why? Did she have a psychotic break or did she kill her children because she could not handle the strain and pressures she felt any longer and wanted to die and to take her children with her? What role did her medications have in her decision making? As of today, not one medical expert has testified that Lindsay had any signs of psychosis. We shall see what her hired expert has to say. Continuing to advocate for her children. They have no voice. They had no way to resist being strangled to death by their mother. Think about that kind of death. Think about what it would take to murder your children slowly and methodically in this way. It was not quick. Callan did not die for days. Why did she cut herself and jump if she didn't know what she did was wrong? Hoping her expert sheds some light on a case that is so very dark. #LindsayClancy Video credit: ChristyfromTO

Jennifer Coffindaffer

25,294 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen