1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Clancy trial verdict predictions
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:25 am to NolaLovingClemsonFan
Posted on 9/3/26 at 8:25 am to NolaLovingClemsonFan
quote:
Anyone got a comprehensive summary of the evidence / case that is objective? I’ve been loosely following this circus but went to my sister’s last night (who has been going off the far left looneybin lately), and she was spouting off all sorts of stuff that sounded like such nonsense but I couldn’t come back with anything concrete. Anyone got anything detailed that spells it all out. The wife strangled the kids and admitted to doing it, right?
Is there any particular part she keeps going back to you're looking to refute specifically?
Yes, she admitted to it in multiple court filings
1 being at the beginning of this trial where both sides agreed to the stipulation that she did the act so all evidence proving she did the act didn't need to be shown since it would be redundant
This trial was specifically focused on her mental state at the time of the murders
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:07 am to rt3
quote:
This trial was specifically focused on her mental state at the time of the murders
This keeps getting repeated but it's not true. This is her criminal trial. Just because an arrest warrant was issued and a grand jury said there should be a trial is not an automatic assumption of guilt.
There is an option of "not guilty" here. The judge has said repeatedly that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Commonwealth had to prove that a) she did it at all, and b) if she did it, was she of sound mind.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:16 am to HouseMom
quote:
This keeps getting repeated but it's not true.
It's not technically true, but her own lawyers have said as much in open court. There is zero chance she's getting a straight not guilty verdict.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:17 am to HouseMom
quote:
There is an option of "not guilty" here. The judge has said repeatedly that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Commonwealth had to prove that a) she did it at all, and b) if she did it, was she of sound mind.
Technically true
But... you see... the admission as a stipulation is still there for the exact reason I stated
She has admitted to doing the act in court on the record in this trial... that is indisputable
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 9:19 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:20 am to HouseMom
quote:
Just because an arrest warrant was issued and a grand jury said there should be a trial is not an automatic assumption of guilt.
No one says that it is.
quote:
There is an option of "not guilty" here. The judge has said repeatedly that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Commonwealth had to prove that a) she did it at all, and b) if she did it, was she of sound mind.
The only not guilty option is not guilt by reason of insanity. To give you a quick 1L course crimes contain two parts, mens rea and actus reas. There is no doubt, and it was admitted to, that she did the action (actus reus) but what is up for debate is if she is legally culpable because of her mental state to be found guilty of the crime (mens rea).
So no there is no option of "not guilty" because she didn't do it, that is a fantasy of crazy women online.
quote:
HouseMom
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:29 am to lionward2014
quote:
So no there is no option of "not guilty" because she didn't do it, that is a fantasy of crazy women online.
Yes or no. The jury can come back with a plain "not guilty."
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:31 am to HouseMom
quote:
Yes or no. The jury can come back with a plain "not guilty."
You know you've lost when you resort to one word answer leading questions
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:32 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You know you've lost when you resort to one word answer leading questions
Hold up, the person I'm responding to said this is a trial about her mental state at the time of the murders. The truth is the jury can just say she's not guilty at all. I didn't make this up.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:35 am to HouseMom
quote:
The truth is the jury can just say she's not guilty at all.
They could also say frick you judge eat shite. Equal chance of them saying straight not guilty. This case has made some women literally retarded. The nuance has been explained to you by several, you choose not to hear it. Don't reproduce and don't vote please.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:36 am to HouseMom
quote:
Yes or no. The jury can come back with a plain "not guilty."
Sure all 12 people can disregard the facts and evidence, including the stipulations that she actually did it and find her plainly not guilty. If you want your "umm actually" moment, take it, but that isn't an option even worth discussing.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:36 am to LNCHBOX
Dude you are being insane
It’s 100% an option for the jury to have a straight not guilty. The judge read it in the jury instructions
Some of y’all freak out over anything.
It’s 100% an option for the jury to have a straight not guilty. The judge read it in the jury instructions
Some of y’all freak out over anything.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 9:37 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:37 am to lionward2014
A mom on Tuesday in Illinois just killed her kid in her home and then attempted suicide. This shite is getting crazy.
KPTV.com
KPTV.com
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:38 am to lsupride87
quote:
It’s 100% an option for the jury to have a straight not guilty.
Glad to see you have the reading comprehension of a retarded female.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:42 am to LNCHBOX
quote:What comprehension is missing from the start of the conversation where this was posted
Glad to see you have the reading comprehension of a retarded female.
quote:
The only not guilty option is not guilt by reason of insanity. To give you a quick 1L course crimes contain two parts, mens rea and actus reas. There is no doubt, and it was admitted to, that she did the action (actus reus) but what is up for debate is if she is legally culpable because of her mental state to be found guilty of the crime (mens rea). So no there is no option of "not guilty" because she didn't do it, that is a fantasy of crazy women online.
It’s just wrong. Just factually wrong. Downvote and get mad but it’s wrong as can be
There is 100% without a doubt an option for a straight not guilty
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 9:43 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:44 am to lsupride87
quote:
What comprehension is missing from the start of the conversation where this was posted
You really are insufferable twat.
quote:Again the nuance has been explained, but you're going to an argumentative fgt,. Knock yourself out.
It’s just wrong. Just factually wrong. Downvote and get made but it’s wrong as can be
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:45 am to lionward2014
quote:
Sure all 12 people can disregard the facts and evidence, including the stipulations that she actually did it and find her plainly not guilty.
The phenomenon of "jury nullification"
I can't imagine any jury nullification would be on the table here after they heard the 911 call
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:45 am to LNCHBOX
So the rumor is its the two younger chicks holding up the whole thing
Curious if it's the same two women who showed up wearing pink earlier
Curious if it's the same two women who showed up wearing pink earlier
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:48 am to stout
quote:
So the rumor is its the two younger chicks holding up the whole thing
Wouldn't be surprising.
quote:
Curious if it's the same two women who showed up wearing pink earlier
Definitely wouldn't be surprising
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:48 am to rt3
It is technically an option but with both defense and prosecution basically agreeing that she did it and it wasn’t self defense, the options are NGBRI, manslaughter (which is fricked up), and murder.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 9:50 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:49 am to stout
That rumor is fabricated. Polymarket twitter kinda sucks.
Page 25 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News