Anybody been following this? Jury starting day three of deliberations on whether or not she murdered her three children or is not guilty by reason of insanity three weeks after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital.
Lindsay Clancy Case
16,134 Views |
268 Replies |
Last: 23 hrs ago by EatMoreSalmon
El Oso said:
Anybody been following this? Jury starting day three of deliberations on whether or not she murdered her three children or is not guilty by reason of insanity three weeks after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital.
Sentencing is the most important issue here. If she is not at least sentenced to basically life in a mental institution, there will be copycat events. There will always be those who desire to go all Ms. Goebbels on their children for some rationalized reason.
Adios, Mrs Clancy
That may not happen with a not guilty by reason of insanity. If that verdict happens, according to NBC, Judge William Sullivan has said that if Clancy is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, the district attorney or another authority will likely petition the court to commit her to a mental health facility. It is unclear what her sentencing will look like if she is convicted of a lesser charge.
Susan Smith comes to mind. Her claim was rejected and so have her parole hearings so far.
But, if she's legit not responsible due to mental health, shouldn't she only be detained until that issue is resolved? It could be life. It could take a few years.
Post partem depression is a crazy thing. I never had it, but I have looked a woman who had it in the eyes before. Fortunately, she didn't do anything crazy and she was able to recover, but each story is unique.
I dont know enough about the evidence in this case to know what the right call here is.
But, if she's legit not responsible due to mental health, shouldn't she only be detained until that issue is resolved? It could be life. It could take a few years.
Post partem depression is a crazy thing. I never had it, but I have looked a woman who had it in the eyes before. Fortunately, she didn't do anything crazy and she was able to recover, but each story is unique.
I dont know enough about the evidence in this case to know what the right call here is.
El Oso said:
Anybody been following this? Jury starting day three of deliberations on whether or not she murdered her three children or is not guilty by reason of insanity three weeks after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital.
My wife is. I'm hearing about it a lot. She loves her attorney. Thinks the husband did it.
El Oso said:
Susan Smith comes to mind. Her claim was rejected and so have her parole hearings so far.
But, if she's legit not responsible due to mental health, shouldn't she only be detained until that issue is resolved? It could be life. It could take a few years.
Post partem depression is a crazy thing. I never had it, but I have looked a woman who had it in the eyes before. Fortunately, she didn't do anything crazy and she was able to recover, but each story is unique.
I dont know enough about the evidence in this case to know what the right call here is.
Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She is still in a mental hospital and has waived every release hearing.
It seems in general there is a very disturbing trend of more and more people willing to excuse and even support or celebrate murder for a lot of reasons that would've been unthinkable as recently as 5 years ago. We just keep becoming more of a sick society in so many ways.
Mitch Blood Green said:El Oso said:
Anybody been following this? Jury starting day three of deliberations on whether or not she murdered her three children or is not guilty by reason of insanity three weeks after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital.
My wife is. I'm hearing about it a lot. She loves her attorney. Thinks the husband did it.
The husband did it? He wasn't even home. Unless your wife is arguing he killed the kids, tossed his wife out of the window, ran to the store, and then pretended to walk in on it all. You'd think the wife would be pointing the finger at him instead of taking the not guilty by insanity defense. Better odds on a my husband did it defense than I did it but I'm insane defense.
El Oso said:
Susan Smith comes to mind. Her claim was rejected and so have her parole hearings so far.
But, if she's legit not responsible due to mental health, shouldn't she only be detained until that issue is resolved? It could be life. It could take a few years.
Post partem depression is a crazy thing. I never had it, but I have looked a woman who had it in the eyes before. Fortunately, she didn't do anything crazy and she was able to recover, but each story is unique.
I dont know enough about the evidence in this case to know what the right call here is.
She's already been released once. There is no serious consideration that could not require her a long term stay. If the experts in the field missed it before, they had better be very sure about the second time. Otherwise more death will ensue.
El Oso said:Mitch Blood Green said:El Oso said:
Anybody been following this? Jury starting day three of deliberations on whether or not she murdered her three children or is not guilty by reason of insanity three weeks after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital.
My wife is. I'm hearing about it a lot. She loves her attorney. Thinks the husband did it.
The husband did it? He wasn't even home. Unless your wife is arguing he killed the kids, tossed his wife out of the window, ran to the store, and then pretended to walk in on it all. You'd think the wife would be pointing the finger at him instead of taking the not guilty by insanity defense. Better odds on a my husband did it defense than I did it but I'm insane defense.
Crap, I'll talk out my ass. Her theory is Lindsey was doped up and the husband was unengaged. He is the only one who heard her confession. Body temperature 82 degrees and she's paralyzed. It was not possible for a coherent confession.
She's also shocked at the ineptness of her Post Pardon care. Seemed that they were hit and miss on her drugs.
Whether he was or wasn't an active father, there is no doubt in my mind the post partem woman definitely saw him as a problem. It is highly probable these feelings were one of the reasons or the breaking point to her doing what she did. As I said, I've looked a post partem woman in the eyes. Their perception is their reality.
What little I have heard of her mental care is quite shocking, so it seems she may not have gotten the help she needed.
Then again, is it all an act to get away with her brutal act? I'm thinking this jury hangs and it starts all over. They started hour 16 of deliberations about an hour ago.
Edit: Jury is done for the day. Deliberations resume at 9am. Maybe they are going home to sleep on it and let us know in the morning.
What little I have heard of her mental care is quite shocking, so it seems she may not have gotten the help she needed.
Then again, is it all an act to get away with her brutal act? I'm thinking this jury hangs and it starts all over. They started hour 16 of deliberations about an hour ago.
Edit: Jury is done for the day. Deliberations resume at 9am. Maybe they are going home to sleep on it and let us know in the morning.
Lindsay Clancy Truthers Are The Best Argument For Repealing The 19th Amendment
https://thefederalist.com/2026/08/31/lindsay-clancy-truthers-are-the-best-argument-for-repealing-the-19th-amendment/
https://thefederalist.com/2026/08/31/lindsay-clancy-truthers-are-the-best-argument-for-repealing-the-19th-amendment/
The mother choked-out her three children. Those babies looked up at their mother and she looked down at them as she slowly executed each one.
How any rational person can put sympathy on the murder and not those children is the most horrific part of this story.
How any rational person can put sympathy on the murder and not those children is the most horrific part of this story.
historian said:
Lindsay Clancy Truthers Are The Best Argument For Repealing The 19th Amendment
https://thefederalist.com/2026/08/31/lindsay-clancy-truthers-are-the-best-argument-for-repealing-the-19th-amendment/
.
GrowlTowel said:
The mother choked-out her three children. Those babies looked up at their mother and she looked down at them as she slowly executed each one.
How any rational person can put sympathy on the murder and not those children is the most horrific part of this story.
I'll only speak for me. Choking 3 kids? I can't do it. 2? They probably deserve it.
GrowlTowel said:
The mother choked-out her three children. Those babies looked up at their mother and she looked down at them as she slowly executed each one.
How any rational person can put sympathy on the murder and not those children is the most horrific part of this story.
And each child watched her murder their siblings in a particularly gruesome manner. They knew what was coming.
One would have to be insane to conclude she does not deserve severe punishment. Honestly, she has earned the death penalty but blue states value criminals over victims so she won't get that. She might walk free or get only a slap on the wrist.
I hope you are joking. No child deserves to be strangled to death.
historian said:
One would have to be insane to conclude she does not deserve severe punishment. Honestly, she has earned the death penalty but blue states value criminals over victims so she won't get that. She might walk free or get only a slap on the wrist.
Good Lord. It was a court in that Big Blue State of Texas that acquitted Andrea Yates. People in all states care about their children.
Sometimes the facts in a case make things kinda difficult.
Jury has informed the judge they are deadlocked. Judge orders them to continue.
El Oso said:
Jury has informed the judge they are deadlocked. Judge orders them to continue.
Difficulty deciding the charge to go with would be my guess.
It's a difficult thought process to believe someone isn't insane to carry out such a thing, but it does happen. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" would make the highest murder charge difficult to reach as well.
historian said:
I hope you are joking. No child deserves to be strangled to death.
Honestly? It depends on their politics. I know you're 3 but you support Trump?
The fact that so many stupid middle class and wealthy white women think her husband did it provides great information content into today's politics. It's hard to survive as a country when 35% of the people are detached from reality.
GrowlTowel said:
The mother choked-out her three children. Those babies looked up at their mother and she looked down at them as she slowly executed each one.
How any rational person can put sympathy on the murder and not those children is the most horrific part of this story.
Most women are irrational. I am familiar with a decent amount of so-called "true crime." Half of the pro-killers arguments from women are "I just don't believe X type of person would do Y crime."
Hard for me to believe she heard voices and was legally insane for just long enough to brutally and thoughtfully murder three kids. But the MA law is different than many so get the deadlock.
0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
El Oso said:
0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?
Only a lunatic like a liberal can support this lady
Mitch Blood Green said:El Oso said:
0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?
Nine women three men. I lean option one. Two definitely has a lot of possibility to it.
1. 10-2 (2 say not guilty by reason of insanity. Both women.)
2. They're split at least two ways, and possibly all three, between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. (They have too many ways to find her guilty with a wide variety of punishments depending on which one they choose. They may all think she's guilty but disagree on how much. For instance, if you're first degree and I'm manslaughter, can we really compromise and call it second degree?)
Mitch Blood Green said:El Oso said:
0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?
Nobody not on the jury should know this just now.
You know the lawyers are trying to figure it out. Do we deal this out or take our chances with another jury? Both sides.
fubar said:Mitch Blood Green said:El Oso said:
0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?
Nobody not on the jury should know this just now.
Does the judge know?
El Oso said:
You know the lawyers are trying to figure it out. Do we deal this out or take our chances with another jury? Both sides.
If the judge declares a mistrial, or the jury delivers a verdict, the lawyers will be able to question the members. They don't have to talk, but the lawyers will be able to learn a lot.
But now, nobody should know things like where the jury is leaning.
Talking to the lawyers in the jury room after we sentenced the lady was a pretty cool experience. They also get to tell you things they couldn't tell you in the trial.
Mitch Blood Green said:fubar said:Mitch Blood Green said:El Oso said:
0-2
The jury can refuse a third request to continue deliberations under Massachusetts law.
You have any thoughts on which direction jury is hung?
Nobody not on the jury should know this just now.
Does the judge know?
No. If the judge knew where the jury was leaning and sent them back with instructions to reach a verdict, he'd essentially be putting his thumb on the scale. Not the judge's job in a jury trial.