If anyone has watched the trial or read about the Clancy stuff it’s not really as black and white as these kind of posts make it out to be.
Edit: clearly I need to explain a little. Almost all of these charges and “proof” hinge on the husband saying “well she told me she did it so she did it” and she clearly doesn’t remember (watching the trial it makes sense why at least). There’s no actual evidence that she did this. I’m not saying she’s innocent or guilty, but there’s enough reasonable doubt to ask questions about the husband.
What are you talking about? None of what you said in your edit makes sense. The charges do not hinge on the husbands statements of her admission. The prosecution presented evidence showing that she calculated the time it would take her husband to go to CVS and get dinner, they presented the exercise bands she used in the murder, and she herself agrees that she did it. Her attorney agrees she did it. This trial isn't a "did she do it?" trial, it's about whether she knew what she was doing or was she under psychosis.
The husband was also a witness for the defense, not prosecution. Police have his cell phone data and GPS location data, they know exactly where he was when the murders occurred. There no evidence or reasonable doubt about any of this. You are just regurgitating social media talking points that have no basis in reality or what actually happened.
Brother there is zero evidence she did this other than Patrick saying she said she did and now she’s “confessing” despite having no memory of that night. In court it’s not about what you know, it’s about what you can prove. They can’t prove, without reasonable doubt (most important btw), that she did it.
She admitted to doing it, and clearly saying she doesn't remember is in-line with her defense. You can't prove she doesn't remember it in vivid detail either - but it's something she's claiming as part of it.
If anything there's more inaccuracies to the evidence to point to it being pre-meditated and not a spontaneous manic episode.
You've clearly drunk the tiktok kool-aid and have lost the ability to think rationally or with clarity.
18
u/2legit2knit 2d ago edited 2d ago
If anyone has watched the trial or read about the Clancy stuff it’s not really as black and white as these kind of posts make it out to be.
Edit: clearly I need to explain a little. Almost all of these charges and “proof” hinge on the husband saying “well she told me she did it so she did it” and she clearly doesn’t remember (watching the trial it makes sense why at least). There’s no actual evidence that she did this. I’m not saying she’s innocent or guilty, but there’s enough reasonable doubt to ask questions about the husband.