Charley Bourne True Crime
Region: GB
Tuesday 18 August 2026 18:00:00 GMT
344698
32286
414
1113
Music
Download
Comments
Jimbob 🏴🐓 :
Patrick Clancy physically could not have committed these acts because independent digital and physical evidence proves he was not even inside the house when they occurred. Prosecutors and defense attorneys completely agree that Lindsay Clancy acted alone during a brief, calculated window of time after she explicitly sent Patrick out of the house to run errands. Time-stamped security camera footage firmly places Patrick blocks away standing inside a CVS pharmacy and picking up takeout food at a local restaurant while the events were taking place at home. Cell phone records, store receipts, and GPS tracking corroborate his exact whereabouts during this timeline. Furthermore, when Patrick returned home, he had to physically break into his own locked bedroom door to find his injured wife, and it was his own traumatised voice on the call to emergency services that brought first responders to the scene. Neither the police, the prosecution, nor the defense have ever considered Patrick a suspect because the hard, scientific data completely rules him out
2026-08-24 16:12:46
0
Jaime 🏡 Home Finds :
Anyway it goes she loses. Her children are gone and she’s paralyzed
2026-08-19 13:21:47
1169
Brunette4life :
Lindsay is innocent i do not care what anyone says
2026-08-18 19:56:36
411
T :
Ive never seen a case with so much doubt
2026-08-18 18:06:44
5566
Kari S. :
Not criminally responsible. She tried so hard to get help and was failed.
2026-08-18 22:01:15
792
The Yankcunian 🇺🇸🇬🇧 :
I think the insanity defense, while valid, is an insurance policy. I think Reddington is laying out the case for it to have NOT been her at all.
2026-08-18 18:40:32
1483
nathalie :
i hope the jurors will all agree to find her not guilty
2026-08-19 09:44:10
164
K4TY4 :
So can Patrick be put to jail if all evidence points that way or not ??? Would it have to be after this trial and a new case that’s against him instead?
2026-08-18 23:53:57
85
🌻Steph🌻 :
husband did it
2026-08-19 10:17:16
19
Ladyshii_ :
The pain this woman has to go through after this,is unimaginable
2026-08-18 18:55:45
195
Naomi :
she pled not guilty
2026-08-19 11:35:41
5
Littletinker :
They need to be investigating Patrick! He’s the one that should be on trial
2026-08-19 11:14:42
52
sarahandherbooks📚 :
So no, there aren’t four possible outcomes. There are basically two main ones because the defense already agrees that Lindsay caused the deaths. What she is contesting is criminal responsibility. If she is found guilty of first-degree murder, that means the jury found that the prosecution proved the required elements of murder and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible at the time. She goes to prison. If she is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, that does not mean the jury thinks she didn’t kill them. It means they believe she did it but was legally insane at the time, so she would be committed to psychiatric hospitalization rather than prison. Do you know what it means when the defense says it is “not contesting the government’s case in chief”? It means the defense is not fighting the basic evidence showing that Lindsay caused the deaths. What they are fighting is criminal responsibility because they say she was insane at the time. She pleaded not guilty to the murder charges. That is different from saying, “I didn’t kill them.” The charges require the prosecution to prove specific legal elements, including criminal responsibility once insanity is properly raised. Lindsay’s defense disputes that those elements have been proved. So because both sides are essentially in agreement about who caused the deaths, the prosecution does not need to spend weeks arguing, “Look, Lindsay definitely did this,” while the defense pretends somebody else did. The prosecution’s major job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible when she did it. The defense is saying, “Yes, she caused their deaths, but she was legally insane.” At the same time, they can still challenge the elements of first-degree murder so that, if the jury rejects the insanity defense, they can argue that the evidence supports a lesser degree of homicide rather than first-degree murder.
2026-08-19 01:21:33
13
mima :
the amount of reasonable doubt is insane
2026-08-19 07:42:13
47
e-lliexx :
She might not be guilty point blank why does it have to be cos she’s inane? He might of done it. Please
2026-08-19 07:03:32
17
Jadeleaheaton :
The only correct result would be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, imo.
2026-08-19 21:07:06
9
my_bookish_diaries_ :
I support her.
2026-08-18 20:36:54
45
Ali :
i hope she gets life or death penalty
2026-08-21 17:38:50
6
BadNewsBewes :
Got hung jury written all over it
2026-08-19 11:10:51
141
niyahhhhpooh :
can you cover the case of the black woman that went through the same exact thing and didnt even get these options
2026-08-18 19:51:44
135
Kylie Halliwell :
Hear me out the jury find her not guilty then have the balls to shout her husband did it
2026-08-18 18:58:30
50
To see more videos from user @charleybournetruecrime, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
