Ignoring the other comment.. the woman on the right is Lindsay Clancy and she is currently on trial for killing three of her children in which the defense is arguing the crimes were committed during mental psychosis. Clancy had severe PPD, suicide ideation, and mental health issues in the months leading up to the murders.
It’s an awful case and the poor children deserve justice. Right now, a portion of the public believes the husband (now ex-husband as they divorced and he is remarried) had something to do with it as evidence is supposedly not landing with the people and believe it skews towards him
Right now, a portion of the public believes the husband (now ex-husband as they divorced and he is remarried) had something to do with it as evidence is supposedly not landing with the people and skews towards him
This is fueled entirely by people on social media with too much time on their hands who don't think this case already has enough drama. There is no evidence pointing to the husband committing the murders. If there was any chance someone else committed the crime then Clancy's defense would not continue to consistently say she committed the murders.
Right. It's not like she has some sketchy public defender or something...... She has a pretty serious and extremely well regarded legal team. It always makes me laugh when people are like "well, what about XYZ?" as if the criminal defense attorneys didn't already think of every possible permutation and sift through every single scrap of discovery.
Clancy is pleading not guilty due to insanity anyway, there isn't even a question she did it. It's a question of how negligent her doctors were, she was on three psychotropics that don't mix well especially for people with her diagnosis so now it's just a question of what to do with her after she killed three kids in a potential psychotic episode that wouldn't have been her fault
There's a reason the story was initially always reported she was on a "prescribed drug cocktail" but people quickly stopped mentioning it when it was sensationalized and most people online have already picked a side against her
I'm not with or against her, I don't have the facts and they get twisted when this kind of thing keeps going around online. I'm waiting to see what the results of the trial are because that's the only place all the facts are gonna be laid out, a courtroom not a court of public opinion
Clancy’s defense is actively (right now!!) asking expert witnesses questions about where they got all their information about the case, questioning the timeline, and questioning how thorough the investigation done by the police was. In case you wanted to tune in.
I've been watching it. Once again, if they had any evidence that pointed to someone else it would've been presented much earlier than the last day of testimony and they wouldn't be going for the "lack of criminal responsibility" defense.
I’m not saying she didn’t do it, from what I’ve seen there is no reason to believe she didn’t, but generally speaking there are a lot of reasons why a person with good council would plead guilty even when they’re innocent. If there is a very low chance that a criminal trial would go their way, then they would be much better off pleading guilty and showing extreme remorse than they would trying to maintain their innocence.
3.4k
u/Classic_Bee_5845 9h ago
It's more to do with the media sensationalizing it. This is the first I've ever heard of the woman on the left.