Lindsay Clancy Case

15,933 Views | 268 Replies | Last: 15 hrs ago by EatMoreSalmon
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're splitting hairs between under oath and a legal request to answer the questions fully and truthfully.

This is what appears on the jury questionnaire.
On the back of your Reminder Notice you will find the Confidential Juror Questionnaire (CJQ), which you must complete and bring to the courthouse. The CJQ helps the court and the parties decide who is best suited to sit on a particular jury, and takes the place of more detailed individual questioning of jurors. Willful misrepresentation on the CJQ is a crime, so you must be sure to complete the CJQ fully and truthfully. CJQs are collected by the court after impanelment and only the court personnel have access to them. If you are not seated on a jury, your CJQ is destroyed.
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
She's the one I mentioned. I see dropped charges as drastically different than an active restraining order. I don't think I would have put it down in box 3 if I were her.
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

She's the one I mentioned. I see dropped charges as drastically different than an active restraining order. I don't think I would have put it down in box 3 if I were her.

Yea, I agree that would be no big deal, the Voir Dire question on the other hand is. Big issue there, being able to be impartial is the biggest issue with being a juror. There were several clear activists on the jury who were also clearly biased. One of them had been an advocate for the Read woman who backed over her ex.

Multiple creepers on the jury.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

You're splitting hairs between under oath and a legal request to answer the questions fully and truthfully.

This is what appears on the jury questionnaire.
On the back of your Reminder Notice you will find the Confidential Juror Questionnaire (CJQ), which you must complete and bring to the courthouse. The CJQ helps the court and the parties decide who is best suited to sit on a particular jury, and takes the place of more detailed individual questioning of jurors. Willful misrepresentation on the CJQ is a crime, so you must be sure to complete the CJQ fully and truthfully. CJQs are collected by the court after impanelment and only the court personnel have access to them. If you are not seated on a jury, your CJQ is destroyed.

I am not sure why you continue to dig down the hole you are in.

I merely pointed out that the answers in voir dire are subject to perjury - a felony and something that would disqualify a juror and actually help your cause.

Knowingly misrepresenting or lying on the jury form is not a felony and does not statutorily disqualify a juror.

Again, any issues with any of these jurors was waived - meaning it does not matter now.
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Clancy juror says she wanted to pardon child killer to make the system "better for other women"

https://notthebee.com/article/clancy-juror-says-she-wanted-to-pardon-child-killer-to-make-the-system-better-for-other-women


This is what happens when people thinks it's ok to kill babies. The scary part is how banal such thinking has become.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20


"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
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

GrowlTowel said:



Assume that the juror knowingly lied on his basic juror questionnaire, how does his past affect the case or the verdict?


It makes him an ineligible juror under the law which means the defendant did not receive a fair trial which is a major violation of her constitutional rights.

You seem to be okay with it because the jury hung. That's only one of three options. What about the other too.

Should a guilty verdict stand? Yes, she could appeal it, but it shouldn't have happened because the juror should not have been on the jury.

Would you be okay with this if the verdict was not guilty? My guess is no, but here you would have no recourse because of double jeopardy.

I am comfortable with none of the outcomes. An ineligible juror ended up on a trial. This should not happen. Defendants have rights, and courts must protect those rights.
she didn't have a fair trial because multiple jurors and the bench tried to sway a juror to testify during deliberations.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
trey3216 said:

historian said:

Clancy juror says she wanted to pardon child killer to make the system "better for other women"

https://notthebee.com/article/clancy-juror-says-she-wanted-to-pardon-child-killer-to-make-the-system-better-for-other-women


This is what happens when people thinks it's ok to kill babies. The scary part is how banal such thinking has become.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20


"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

From George Orwell's pen to the minds of modern AWFL's (Affluent White Female Leftists) including the Clancy jury.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

trey3216 said:

historian said:

Clancy juror says she wanted to pardon child killer to make the system "better for other women"

https://notthebee.com/article/clancy-juror-says-she-wanted-to-pardon-child-killer-to-make-the-system-better-for-other-women


This is what happens when people thinks it's ok to kill babies. The scary part is how banal such thinking has become.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20


"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

From George Orwell's pen to the minds of modern AWFL's (Affluent White Female Leftists) including the Clancy jury.

Orwell seems to be more prescient every year - unfortunately.

As noted, this is just the logical extension of radical pro-abortion leftists. I am surprised defending a triple child killer has become a tribal issue with the LWNJs. Seems uncontroversial to think this is a bad thing.

I do think there is a decent chance she planned the entire thing from the beginning. People sort of ignore the fact that she was a labor & delivery nurse - meaning she was sophisticated when it came to the health care system. They act like she was just abused by providers, but she knew was she was doing, and she clearly was doctor shopping and not necessarily taking all of the medications prescribed. She could have been just setting up a lawsuit and defense know her long-term plan.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All very plausible. I've not seen one shred of evidence to indicate any verdict other than guilty. The fact that 11 jurors thought otherwise says more about them than anyone associated with the case. Maybe they need their own wing in the local asylum.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

All very plausible. I've not seen one shred of evidence to indicate any verdict other than guilty. The fact that 11 jurors thought otherwise says more about them than anyone associated with the case. Maybe they need their own wing in the local asylum.

The issue here is the majority of us want some form of Justice for the children who were brutally murdered by their mother. She came up with the extraordinarily flimsy defense that a lone male voice once and only once in her life told her to murder her children, and she simply obeyed.

Her evaluation, and yes, she was in outpatient for a week and inpatient for a week was that she didn't even have post-partum depression her symptoms did not align but generalized anxiety and depression. She was Doc shopping to get the meds she wanted but for the most part wasn't even taking those meds.

I have had customers I was not allowed to write Life insurance on who had psychotic breaks. They suffered with many episodes over many years; one lady walked out into traffic one time. This isn't a one and done medical issue.

I don't believe her for a second. "Believe all women" is a mantra that is garbage, this murder has become a feminist political cause. It isn't even about the murder, but getting women better care. Even though men commit suicide at a 4X incident level and women have double the research for mental illness and have a 5 year longer life expectancy, but let's all make a horrific murder about women's health care.

This lady should be incarcerated the rest of her life, and it should be in prison, where she can get all the health care she needs.


Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's what I was trying to tease out of El Oso, who seems to support this idea that the state must prove a person was not insane. I genuinely do not know how that is possible. I do not know how a state can reasonably prove that a person was not insane. How can it prove she did not hear a voice or actually did not know what she was doing. I think it created a dangerous precedent although clearly states have proved it in other cases.

Not sure there is a more clear case a a person clearly knowing what she was doing and then pulling off her plan. To your point, I think the jurors had an agenda and did not really base their decision on the evidence.
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have posited on multiple occasions that it would be incredibly difficult to "prove" someone is not insane.

You would have to get inside their head. When someone says they heard a voice, how could you decode their brain to gather proof that they didn't. And in the age of "believe all women" and "me too" it becomes a political movement to agree with the person, at all costs.

When someone says they saw "bigfoot" how do you prove in the literal world they didn't with actual evidence, since the evidence cannot exist. In a court of law could you definitively prove such a thing. You literally could not.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agreed, except she deserves the death penalty. Unfortunately, blue states don't believe in death for the guilty. They reserve that for the innocent (babies, conservatives, Jews, etc).
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The whole idea is a perversion of justice. It's almost as if the legal structure of Massachusetts is designed to help criminals escape justice.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller III said:

I have posited on multiple occasions that it would be incredibly difficult to "prove" someone is not insane.

You would have to get inside their head. When someone says they heard a voice, how could you decode their brain to gather proof that they didn't. And in the age of "believe all women" and "me too" it becomes a political movement to agree with the person, at all costs.

When someone says they saw "bigfoot" how do you prove in the literal world they didn't with actual evidence, since the evidence cannot exist. In a court of law could you definitively prove such a thing. You literally could not.

100%. Seems like if one is going to use insanity as a defense, common sense would dictate one must prove that one actually is insane - not sure it is possible to prove a suspect is not.

How insane is it that we now have resorted to doxxing jurors. The fact the holdout was black is probably the only thing saving him. Listening to those other jurors I think some went in with a clear agenda and nothing would have changed their minds.

The sad part is I believe we had a second copycat, this one in MA.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The crazy fascists are harassing the only sane juror and his family:

Report: Male juror who would not acquit Lindsay Clancy is in hiding and his family "cannot leave the house"

https://notthebee.com/article/report-male-juror-who-would-not-acquit-lindsay-clancy-is-in-hiding-and-his-family-cannot-leave-the-house

I wonder how long it will take these racists (by Dem "logic") to form a lynch mob. According to Dems, anyone criticizing or disagreeing with a black is automatically racist. This was quite common when Obama was prez and was largely true with George Floyd and other criminals. Obviously, they exempted conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas from such consideration.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

The crazy fascists are harassing the only sane juror and his family:

Report: Male juror who would not acquit Lindsay Clancy is in hiding and his family "cannot leave the house"

https://notthebee.com/article/report-male-juror-who-would-not-acquit-lindsay-clancy-is-in-hiding-and-his-family-cannot-leave-the-house

I wonder how long it will take these racists (by Dem "logic") to form a lynch mob. According to Dems, anyone criticizing or disagreeing with a black is automatically racist. This was quite common when Obama was prez and was largely true with George Floyd and other criminals. Obviously, they exempted conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas from such consideration.

The crazy thing is they used the rare PPP defense and it worked. First off, it's rare 1 in 1000. It's more likely with the first child, under age 25, if you are poor, have no family support, and usually happens right after birth and for the first few weeks. Even then less than 1/20 have thoughts of child harm.

She was evaluated twice to not even have ppd much less the incredibly rare ppp. She then said it happened once and only once for 18 minutes and that was relayed only after the murder.

During that 18 minute "episode" she had the wherewithal to stop what she was doing call back her husband and sound lucid and normal having a sane conversation.

This case just shows on full display the insanity of some feminist movements, and how this woman has deceived everybody.

After additional research all I have to say is how stupid are people, how gullible and how evil to be honest.

This murderer should never ever ever she the daylight outside of incarceration.
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The guy Michael addressed his questionnaire in an interview with the website Fugitive TV and stated without reservation that he told the truth on all of the questions. Obviously, he was still chosen, as was at least one other woman who was arrested before for assault and battery and had the charges dropped.

The questionnaire thing sounds like nothing.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

The crazy fascists are harassing the only sane juror and his family:

Report: Male juror who would not acquit Lindsay Clancy is in hiding and his family "cannot leave the house"

https://notthebee.com/article/report-male-juror-who-would-not-acquit-lindsay-clancy-is-in-hiding-and-his-family-cannot-leave-the-house

I wonder how long it will take these racists (by Dem "logic") to form a lynch mob. According to Dems, anyone criticizing or disagreeing with a black is automatically racist. This was quite common when Obama was prez and was largely true with George Floyd and other criminals. Obviously, they exempted conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas from such consideration.

This is the same people that have tried to assassinate political leaders, threaten SCOTUS judges, etc. They're legitimately insane.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And need to be picked up for a long time. Society in general is less safe with such lunatics in public freely.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

And need to be picked up for a long time. Society in general is less safe with such lunatics in public freely.

Saw on the news this evening that Lindsay Clancy is divorced and the husband, Patrick Clancy, has a new wife. Somehow in all of the media frenzy, I missed this. Wasn't the husband sent by Lindsay Clancy to run some errands while she killed the kids? How does that work with a new wife unless you suspect your ex-wife is NUTS????

Patrick Clancy married his new wife in April of 2026.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nothing triggers the left like a conservative black person.

The attacks are normal. Nothing angers them like the blacks getting out of line.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read about that the other day. I don't blame him!
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If it was Charlene Manson instead of Charles, would an insanity plea worked? Or Jessica Dahmer? Insanity plea needs more legal limits in murder cases.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.