Lindsay Clancy
Started by Bittersteel
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Clancy: I did it
Prosecutor: She did it
Defense Attorney: She did it
Tik-Tok wine moms who've watched too many true crime podcasts? "Nuh-uh, Patrick did it. Reddington's gonna have a Gotcha! moment and he'll be in handcuffs!!!!. ZOMG, she nodded at his mom!!! That means he did it!!!!!"
FFS...
Prosecutor: She did it
Defense Attorney: She did it
Tik-Tok wine moms who've watched too many true crime podcasts? "Nuh-uh, Patrick did it. Reddington's gonna have a Gotcha! moment and he'll be in handcuffs!!!!. ZOMG, she nodded at his mom!!! That means he did it!!!!!"
FFS...
I have deliberately ignored this story and get annoyed when I’m making dinner and it comes on nightly news. It feels like the tabloidization of news sources.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Bittersteel
Full Member
There is a difference between:
a) wow, having a neonate kinda sucks for the first two months. I'm kinda not as happy as I could be.
b) physiologic depression
c) full on psychosis
The NPC tiktokers do what they usually do, which is take (a) which represents normal expected human experience (yano, like what's been happening to.us for millennia), layer their own "trauma!" and failure onto it, and generalize it to the entirety of society to claim a system breakdown. The only goal is avoidance of accountability. We can all see it because we specialize in it and observe it every shift.
"We can do anything!" Except not murder when we have the sads.
An excellent reason to turn off the TV and just enjoy your dinner! 😉
I watch the nightly news with D Muir/local for an hr and this is essentially the extent of my news/SM intake. It just confounds me how some can be glued to tiktock/Facebook/Insta and make informed decisions from these. There is a reason why people become "radicalized" and throw logic out the window.
I’m not sure I’d say the nightly news/local news is a whole lot better.
I genuinely believe that we need to reform jury selection and composition. Most people these days really are too incompetent.
If and when that happens, the process will have to involve competent people who don't want to serve on juries, to NOT be able to weasel their way out of it.
I've done it many times, and I'm sure you must have - through completely legitimate channels/excuses.
Definitely. They seem to weed out anyone who they feel has half a brain.
Bittersteel
Full Member
Similar to elections, about 10% of the populace should be eligible.
My favored sources are daily news podcasts. Thankfully, they have been devoid of this story.
David Muir is nightly news for ABC
Thank you for spelling that word right. Half the time I see it spelled “populous.”
You can tell who learned words by reading.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Me speak good!
I know who he is. I still don’t think any national news channel is great whether that be ABC, Fox, MSNBC, etc.
And you can tell who still reads.
Saw several old friends from back home lately on a trip. I wanted to scream several things at them, including:
"You guys really learned NOTHING in high school, didn't you?"
"That's not how that adage is written" (was ridiculed for using the word 'adage'), then; "You'd know if you actually read a book from time to time."
Add voting to that....
IQ test
Before I was dismissed from my last jury duty summons, they had everyone sit in a room and watch a video that not only explained what jury duty was, but was also filled with testimonials from people explaining how serving on a jury was one of the most interesting and rewarding experiences in their life.
To date, I have not shared in the blissful nirvana that evidently exists in the juror box. Oh well.
$20/day and free lunch. What else could you want? 🙂. Oh yeah, free parking!
If I was going to be called for jury duty in a murder case, my answer will always be, “death penalty good”.
This should get me off of a 1 month painful experience. I can not think of another more painful experience than sitting through 1 month of boring lawyer debates and then continue to debate with potentially 11 jurors who decides on their feelz.
This should get me off of a 1 month painful experience. I can not think of another more painful experience than sitting through 1 month of boring lawyer debates and then continue to debate with potentially 11 jurors who decides on their feelz.
Last edited:
I had a med mal case that I wouldn’t settle. Medically very straightforward. Case took 9 business days. The down time for the jurors was very high. It’s super inefficient. During jury selection the lawyer for the plaintiff asked if anyone believed that the moon landing was fake and one guy said yes. He got himself dismissed.
Omg, that's awesome. Lol
Have not followed it and will not change my practice pattern.
Free wifi?
I had a similar case. I decided to settle for about 100K on a death that wasn't even an ER pt. Anyhow, many of these medmal cases are just money bags for everyone involved and all parties want to settle. The Judge wants a quick case. Jurors do not want to be in court. Plaintiffs want a quick buck. Plaintiff's lawyers want their 40% without doing any more work. Defendants do not want their life affected. Defendant's lawyers do not want to be in court for weeks.
TBH 100K was a win win for everyone. Defendant/their lawyer knew they would likely lose. Me/my lawyers did not want to spend months on pretrial and then a week on trial which likely would have cost more than 100K in lawyer fees anyhow.
I would have had to set a trial date, clear my schedule for 1-2 weeks which likely would have cost me $10+k in income with the high likelihood of having it delayed for another date/settle for lesser amount.
BTW, it sucked b/c it was my only medmal case in 20 yrs in the PIT and it was NOT even an ER pt. I was just the unlucky dude who went to the floor for a code.
the jurors who are running to the news to complain about the last guy who wouldn't sign off on a not legally liable ruling.... ummm... they think they are righteous warriors and they are coming off very poorly. They just - and you need to watch the interviews to get it - are so viscerally unlikeable. One of them starting pointing out how they have 3 nurses on the jury and how the one guy holding out did not want the three nurses to insert their own 'medical judgement' into the case and kept dismissing their opinions on stuff that wasnt actually part of the testimony or evidence.
Which I mean... he's completely correct to do.
And then there was that really annoying quote where the foreperson said that he wouldn't listen to a teacher. which. um. okay.
The dude probably did an inverse verison of jury nullification. He apparently admitted that he had questions as to if she was in her right mind, which by the rule of law should probably have made him agree with the rest of the jury. but he also said that he simply does not believe that someone who admitted to murder *should* be able to get off without a penalty even if such a technicality is the point of the case. so, he really shouldnt have been on the case. but MAN do these jurors come off as unlikeable and make it hard for me to agree with them against the one holdout who technically wasn't following the law as explained to him.
Which I mean... he's completely correct to do.
And then there was that really annoying quote where the foreperson said that he wouldn't listen to a teacher. which. um. okay.
The dude probably did an inverse verison of jury nullification. He apparently admitted that he had questions as to if she was in her right mind, which by the rule of law should probably have made him agree with the rest of the jury. but he also said that he simply does not believe that someone who admitted to murder *should* be able to get off without a penalty even if such a technicality is the point of the case. so, he really shouldnt have been on the case. but MAN do these jurors come off as unlikeable and make it hard for me to agree with them against the one holdout who technically wasn't following the law as explained to him.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
These juror comments are just...wow.
The more these jurors speak out the more clear how much of a hero this guy is. He sat in a room surrounded by those people and he didn’t waver.
I think great Americans throughout history have come to a crossroads and understand that a small decision, no matter how seemingly unpopular, needs to be made to keep society on a proper path. This guy could see the lunacy of the room he was in and he understood the assignment.
Post link to these comments. I want to read the crazy.
To be confined in a room with a gaggle this type of women for 40 hours, like he was, is my own version of Hell. I don't know how he did it. #HERO
I'll have to get to this when I'm less agitated. I hate it that you can hardly READ a news story anymore.
Wear some Depends because you’re going to **** yourself.
You need to see them talk to realize how being locked in a room with them for days on end must have been hell.
I can only imagine what it would have been like to be a physician in that room explaining that she clearly didn’t have psychosis. I’m sure the bullying would have continued.
NGRI pleas should have to pass through a panel of psychiatrists first to determine plausibility. Why are we allowing the gen public to determine this when they have never seen a psychotic patient? No psychiatrist I know thinks Lindsay was psychotic, and as a group are all about as liberal as it comes.
(A jury of) Lindsay Clancy’s peers are about as ill equipped to make a legal decision as they come.
(A jury of) Lindsay Clancy’s peers are about as ill equipped to make a legal decision as they come.
Bittersteel
Full Member
The best is how they cite the "expertise" of nurses on the jury. As if someone w associates degree level of education should be listened to regarding pathophysiology and pharmacology.
Society’s overconfidence in nursing intelligence is insane. The whole “be nice to your nurses, we keep your doctors from accidentally killing you” thing. If only they knew the hare brained plans/questions some of my nurses come up with. One of my favorite that I remember was a nurse asking for an elective intubation for a delirious patient to “reset” him. This was an ICU nurse, so I can’t imagine what the LPN who works at the minute clinic had to say about this trial.
Bittersteel
Full Member
Americans hate experts and love feelings.
Nurses are experts in nothing and use feelings for most decisions.
It's sad and funny that these goofball jurors were even allowed on the case.
Also, the prosecution should have not allowed any nurses on this jury panel. They were not being objective and the fact that they entertained/believed the bogus post partum psychosis theory 8 months after she deliveredis ridiculous.
And now she only heard the voice once, acted on it and hasn't heard the voice since. Gimme a break.
That guy is a true hero.
Sticking up for those poor kids. To live such short lives and to die in such a cruel way makes me tear up.
There is no reasonable doubt in this case. She's just a stone child killer.
Also, the prosecution should have not allowed any nurses on this jury panel. They were not being objective and the fact that they entertained/believed the bogus post partum psychosis theory 8 months after she deliveredis ridiculous.
And now she only heard the voice once, acted on it and hasn't heard the voice since. Gimme a break.
That guy is a true hero.
Sticking up for those poor kids. To live such short lives and to die in such a cruel way makes me tear up.
There is no reasonable doubt in this case. She's just a stone child killer.
That is a slice of hell having to deal with these nags.
The glares and comments must have been something else. Lol.
Why did the prosecution even think they could win with this jury makeup. Once you told me 9 women, and now I find out there are some former nurses, no way was this group going to convict.
Prosecution really fumbled. They were way out of their league and went about this case entirely wrong.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Bittersteel
Full Member
Either they royally messed up during jury selection, or they were only able to toss out the cardiac surgery ICU nurses.
A couple a years ago a young elementary school teacher a few miles away in my town was in a custody battle with her husband. All outside indications were that she was a sweet, little, elementary school teacher, like they all present themselves to be. Her husband filed for divorce. He was trying to get custody from her. She was very pissed off. So what she did was, shot and killed the 11 year old boy first (they always do the older ones first, since they're most likely to fight back or escape) then proceeded to murder her 11 year old daughter. She then shot herself.
Why? To condemn her husband to a life of grief and loss of his children. She didn't touch him. The only reason none of you heard of this case is because she didn't bungle her suicide like Clancy did. If she had, some left wing lawyer certainly would have put her on the stand in a sweet pink sweater with some librarian glasses on and painted the husband as a neglectful scumbag who gave her no choice. What he really was, was someone trying to save himself and his kids from their terrible mom.
I personally know the funeral director that did the embalming and funeral. He's a very experience guy 40 years in the business who's seen it all. Even he was shaken up by the whole thing.
Why? To condemn her husband to a life of grief and loss of his children. She didn't touch him. The only reason none of you heard of this case is because she didn't bungle her suicide like Clancy did. If she had, some left wing lawyer certainly would have put her on the stand in a sweet pink sweater with some librarian glasses on and painted the husband as a neglectful scumbag who gave her no choice. What he really was, was someone trying to save himself and his kids from their terrible mom.
I personally know the funeral director that did the embalming and funeral. He's a very experience guy 40 years in the business who's seen it all. Even he was shaken up by the whole thing.
Last edited:
I grew up 15 miles from where the stuff with Susan Smith went down.
If I were on the Jury, in no way will I acquit. I am glad my wife shares similar politics/beliefs as me b/c I could not imagine being married to a deranged Karen who can not make basic decisions based on facts.
Anyone who kills their kids is automatically deranged in my mind BUT this does not mean they get off for being deranged. Not guilty for reasons of insanity just doesn't fly in my mind. You think Dahmer was not insane?
Anyone who kills their kids is automatically deranged in my mind BUT this does not mean they get off for being deranged. Not guilty for reasons of insanity just doesn't fly in my mind. You think Dahmer was not insane?
Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that Massachusetts is rare among states in that its up to the prosecution to prove that someone was of sound mind when they committed a crime. Most places the defense has to prove they were psychotic.
This makes it much easier to get NGRI verdicts there. That's what the reasonable doubt part of this is, basically as a juror if you had any reasonable doubt that she wasn't firing on all cylinders then per the judge's instructions it should have been a NGRI verdict.
Its stupid and I think the lone juror here actually was working towards real justice, but that's the issue from the non-insane people who are mad at that guy.
This makes it much easier to get NGRI verdicts there. That's what the reasonable doubt part of this is, basically as a juror if you had any reasonable doubt that she wasn't firing on all cylinders then per the judge's instructions it should have been a NGRI verdict.
Its stupid and I think the lone juror here actually was working towards real justice, but that's the issue from the non-insane people who are mad at that guy.
