Jurors return in Lindsay Clancy trial after judge asks them to break deadlock

Quilty?

  • yes

    Votes: 70 94.6%

  • no

    Votes: 4 5.4%
  • Total voters
    74
konfab said:
One of the problems with the entire SIDs discourse is that it encourages people to put their babies in cribs instead of cosleeping. Which adds a huge amount of stress for new parents.

You can sleep perfectly safely with a baby in your bed if they are sleeping on your chest. They fall asleep and then you can get some sleep. Due to the calm and rational discussions that are held on mommy Facebook groups, that fact never creeps to the surface.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree to an extent. I think it's a trade off between having to jump up several times during the night versus stressing about inadvertently smothering the baby if it's in bed with you.
 
konfab said:
One of the problems with the entire SIDs discourse is that it encourages people to put their babies in cribs instead of cosleeping. Which adds a huge amount of stress for new parents.

You can sleep perfectly safely with a baby in your bed if they are sleeping on your chest. They fall asleep and then you can get some sleep. Due to the calm and rational discussions that are held on mommy Facebook groups, that fact never creeps to the surface.
Click to expand...
You know of this thing called survivor bias right?
Co sleeping by bed sharing is a terrible idea, in fact it's one of the causes of sids

Bed-sharing is a risk for sudden unexpected death in infancy - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
news.cuanschutz.edu

Co-Sleeping, No Matter Where, Raises the Risk of Sudden Infant Death, Data Show

Discover how co-sleeping can increase the risk of infant deaths and learn about other evidence-based risk factors, including some that parents can control.
news.cuanschutz.edu news.cuanschutz.edu

Characteristics of Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths on Shared and Nonshared Sleep Surfaces - PMC

Describe characteristics of sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID) occurring on shared or nonshared sleep surfaces. We examined SUID among residents of 23 US jurisdictions who died during 2011 to 2020. We calculated frequencies and percentages of ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sleeping in the same room sure, but the same bed no. Over 59% of the deaths attributed to bed sharing.
 
Lupus said:
You know of this thing called survivor bias right?
Co sleeping by bed sharing is a terrible idea, in fact it's one of the causes of sids

Bed-sharing is a risk for sudden unexpected death in infancy - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
news.cuanschutz.edu

Co-Sleeping, No Matter Where, Raises the Risk of Sudden Infant Death, Data Show

Discover how co-sleeping can increase the risk of infant deaths and learn about other evidence-based risk factors, including some that parents can control.
news.cuanschutz.edu news.cuanschutz.edu

Characteristics of Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths on Shared and Nonshared Sleep Surfaces - PMC

Describe characteristics of sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID) occurring on shared or nonshared sleep surfaces. We examined SUID among residents of 23 US jurisdictions who died during 2011 to 2020. We calculated frequencies and percentages of ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sleeping in the same room sure, but the same bed no. Over 59% of the deaths attributed to bed sharing.
Click to expand...

Congratulations for making my point:

Sharing a sleep surface with an infant is discouraged because it increases the risk of sleep-related sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, and other ill-defined and unknown causes.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R1">1</a>–<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R6">6</a> SUID includes infants <1 year old who die suddenly and unexpectedly without an obvious cause before investigation<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R7">7</a> and accounts for about 3400 deaths annually in the United States.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R8">8</a> In 2016 to 2017, 37% of US infants surface shared and 54% of infants in the SUID Case Registry were surface sharing at the time of death.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R6">6</a> Findings from a meta-analysis showed surface sharing was associated with an almost threefold risk of SIDS.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R1">1</a> Surface sharing is associated with an increased odds for both sleep-related suffocation and unexplained infant death (adjusted odds ratios: 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–6.0] and 2.1 [95% CI 1.4–3.2] respectively).<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R6">6</a> Surface sharing, especially on a couch or armchair, increases risk of unintentional suffocation by soft bedding, wedging or entrapment, and overlay.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R3">3</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R9">9</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R10">10</a> Moreover, surface sharing in combination with parental smoking and maternal alcohol or drug use greatly increases SIDS risk.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117443/#R11">11</a>
Click to expand...

SIDS is usually drunk people, smokers, druggies and morbidly obese people putting their babies next to them and sleeping. That is different than destroying your back and having them sleep on you.
 
Lupus said:
Yes and now the jury needs to decide on which of the three verdicts, guilty, not guilty due to insanity or guilty but second degree murder, there is no getting off verdict, only life behind bars, life in an insane asylum or one where she's still behind bars for a long time but not life.
Click to expand...

Killing your first child. Ok, not planned.

Going ahead and killing your second child, not thinking about what she had just done to the first Ok.

Then killing her third child after killing the other two. You know exactly what you are doing.

And she strangled them no less. Not quick deaths. Looking them in the face and eyes while she choked them.
 
OutlawJoseyWales said:
Killing your first child. Ok, not planned.

Going ahead and killing your second child, not thinking about what she had just done to the first Ok.

Then killing her third child after killing the other two. You know exactly what you are doing.

And she strangled them no less. Not quick deaths. Looking them in the face and eyes while she choked them.
Click to expand...
I know :-(
 
TheMightyQuin said:
Imagine the possible legal precedent here:

"My hormones were outta wack, so I killed him/her/them/launched the nuclear strike"

"Oh well, that's OK then."
Click to expand...
I don't know if this trial would generate precedent. Usually you need a higher court for that. Maybe if it gets appealed.
 
Lupus said:
There's no saving her, this isn't a trial for if she did it or not. This is to determine her sentence, life, long time or life in a psych ward
Click to expand...
We all know she did it, that's not in question. The jury still needs to decide a guilty or not guilty verdict, irrespective, and if they decide not guilty, what then?
 
konfab said:
I don't know if this trial would generate precedent. Usually you need a higher court for that. Maybe if it gets appealed.
Click to expand...
I dug deeper and you're correct.

But since you do get Binding Precedent ( A rule of law established by a higher court that a lower court must follow ) , as well as Persuasive Precedent, it could still have a general impact.

Persuasive Precedent: A decision that a court may choose to follow but is not legally obligated to. This includes decisions from courts in other states, other federal circuits, or lower courts.
 
MaxQz said:
We all know she did it, that's not in question. The jury still needs to decide a guilty or not guilty verdict, irrespective, and if they decide not guilty, what then?
Click to expand...
Not guilty due to insanity is the only option, so straight to the looney bin.
 
MaxQz said:
We all know she did it, that's not in question. The jury still needs to decide a guilty or not guilty verdict, irrespective, and if they decide not guilty, what then?
Click to expand...
That is not what this court action about.
Two things can be right at the same time.
She Killed her children and the whole medical system failed her.

IF you watched the whole trial you would understand why there are people saying there might be another trial that needs to happen, no one else was investigated in this case, they all went by the husband saying she told him she did it.
Evidence shows other things, like she never confessed to murder. She was told she did it.

This is besides the point though.
This case the state needs to proof without a doubt that she wasn't in pschycosis when it happened.
The defense is acctually highlighting the state the doctors and the husband's failure to help someone who asked for help so many times and were just given more drugs and denied care because she was over medicated.

We are all invested as this is not clear cut as people who didn't listen and read the case.
The defence is opening a way to make the everyone aware of the failure of medical providers and they should be held accountable for failing so many times

Again, this is not about if she is guilty or not. She never admitted to doing it but her lawyers after 3 years didn't go to court pleading innocense. They are opening a road to hold others accountable for failing a woman who wanted help.


This might open new investigations but the problem is that somethings were just not investigated properly 3 years ago so I do not think that would go anywhere.

This is not because woman. How many school shooting mass shootings and things that has made the headlines could have been prevented if the health care system wasn't negligent.

Its a very interesting case and because technology we can follow.
 
G'Wobblez said:
That is not what this court action about.
Two things can be right at the same time.
She Killed her children and the whole medical system failed her.

IF you watched the whole trial you would understand why there are people saying there might be another trial that needs to happen, no one else was investigated in this case, they all went by the husband saying she told him she did it.
Evidence shows other things, like she never confessed to murder. She was told she did it.

This is besides the point though.
This case the state needs to proof without a doubt that she wasn't in pschycosis when it happened.
The defense is acctually highlighting the state the doctors and the husband's failure to help someone who asked for help so many times and were just given more drugs and denied care because she was over medicated.

We are all invested as this is not clear cut as people who didn't listen and read the case.
The defence is opening a way to make the everyone aware of the failure of medical providers and they should be held accountable for failing so many times

Again, this is not about if she is guilty or not. She never admitted to doing it but her lawyers after 3 years didn't go to court pleading innocense. They are opening a road to hold others accountable for failing a woman who wanted help.


This might open new investigations but the problem is that somethings were just not investigated properly 3 years ago so I do not think that would go anywhere.

This is not because woman. How many school shooting mass shootings and things that has made the headlines could have been prevented if the health care system wasn't negligent.

Its a very interesting case and because technology we can follow.
Click to expand...
Blaming her husband for her murdering her own children with her own hands...Nothing like holding a woman accountable for her actions eh?

She had all the care she needed. Her husband changed jobs so he could work from home to help her.
Several times Clancy indicated to Jollotta either that she had not taken the full dose of a prescribed medication or that she wanted to reduce a dosage or change her prescription based on what she felt were intolerable side effects. Clancy also worried about being addicted to some medications like Ativan, but Jollotta said she was not.
Click to expand...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...ons-prescribed-before-she-killed-her-children

This is on her and her alone.
 
konfab said:
In other words: her defence is: "my hormones made me do it". Male sex drive is also driven entirely by hormones, yet any defence attorney would get laughed out of court if they used the hormonal defence for a rapist. It isn't an excuse.
And if it is an excuse then every single woman on the planet cannot be in any position of responsibility, because they cannot be held liable for their actions due to hormones.

The real slam dunk against any insanity defence is that if the person isn't insane at trial, then they would have realised what they had done was an evil thing and tell their lawyer to take the first plea the prosecutors offer.
Click to expand...
IMG_1290.jpeg
 
G'Wobblez said:
That is not what this court action about.
Two things can be right at the same time.
She Killed her children and the whole medical system failed her.

IF you watched the whole trial you would understand why there are people saying there might be another trial that needs to happen, no one else was investigated in this case, they all went by the husband saying she told him she did it.
Evidence shows other things, like she never confessed to murder. She was told she did it.

This is besides the point though.
This case the state needs to proof without a doubt that she wasn't in pschycosis when it happened.
The defense is acctually highlighting the state the doctors and the husband's failure to help someone who asked for help so many times and were just given more drugs and denied care because she was over medicated.

We are all invested as this is not clear cut as people who didn't listen and read the case.
The defence is opening a way to make the everyone aware of the failure of medical providers and they should be held accountable for failing so many times

Again, this is not about if she is guilty or not. She never admitted to doing it but her lawyers after 3 years didn't go to court pleading innocense. They are opening a road to hold others accountable for failing a woman who wanted help.


This might open new investigations but the problem is that somethings were just not investigated properly 3 years ago so I do not think that would go anywhere.

This is not because woman. How many school shooting mass shootings and things that has made the headlines could have been prevented if the health care system wasn't negligent.

Its a very interesting case and because technology we can follow.
Click to expand...
Ooooook that's not what this case is about.
Stop getting your updates from tik tok moms. The medical system didn't fail her, she asked for help and got it, problem is she's psychotic and killed her children.
The trial is just on what to actually do with her now, that is it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OCP
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X