laughandgrindofficial
Region: US
Thursday 27 August 2026 19:39:59 GMT
10786
611
226
8
Music
Download
Comments
lindabryantcongdon :
No I think she’s innocent, Reddington did a fantastic job. Bow girls were so set on winning they did and said some shady ridiculous statements.
2026-09-01 14:20:33
0
CrystalAnn2229 :
I think they didn’t prove their case Reddington did a GREAT job presenting reasonable doubt
2026-08-27 19:44:01
122
mammabear53 :
They created more doubt than anything
2026-08-27 19:43:05
109
jburke :
absolutely not. their proof is based on what Patrick said.
2026-08-27 20:45:41
12
LSmalls :
Tons and tons of reasonable doubt, especially around Patrick.
2026-08-29 18:52:03
4
Raewagz :
I think there’s to much reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not prove their case of premeditation at all
2026-08-31 13:33:39
0
CJ Brown :
I honestly went into this trial expecting to see and hear about some indepth investigation. Instead, what we got was a rushed, botched investigation, a timeline that doesn't match the evidence and a woman who woke up with no memory until a freaking Dr told her. Those 3 babies deserve justice, but from the right person. idk what the jury is thinking, but I don't know how you convict someone with hearsay.
2026-08-27 19:54:43
59
polarseltzer0 :
The police didn’t fully investigate this case for these poor babies.
2026-08-27 19:44:39
29
🇺🇸Cheryl P Owens 🇺🇸🇺🇸 :
I don’t think CW proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
2026-08-27 20:02:30
19
Naussicä-Jade🐍🕶 :
My take is this : If it went from what I think. She would be Not Guilty by reason of insanity. But if I was juror I would find her Not guilty period. Because you need to understand that the point of juror is to judge wether or not the Prosecutor proved without reasonable doubt that she actually did it. And they didn't. Wether or not I believe she did do it. But I don't believe the Commonwealth met their burden. Their closing argument from the Comminwealth was ridiculous. They admitted that they knew she wasn't well...but then questionned her unaliving attempt , then said she unalived her children because she wanted to end it and they were the reason why she wouldn't do it. But then talked about her unaliving was ungenuine again....Like which one is it ?
2026-08-27 21:24:54
11
✨️🌸Danielle🌸✨️ :
if one of them women on the jury has mental health must of been angry when bow&co said "does she look like someone whos depressed" depression isnt visible!
2026-08-27 20:31:10
25
• Amber • :
I don’t think the commonwealth proved anything other than that the DAs office needs new attorneys.
2026-08-28 10:28:19
8
Danielle :
They proved nothing. Nada. Zilch
2026-08-28 09:52:48
7
Kristen 🦚🦚🧡💙 :
No… there was NO true investigation.. I think Patrick’s background and family history! Lack of evidence during the investigation.
2026-08-27 19:49:08
15
Rosi_Maria :
yes they proved shes guilty
2026-08-28 14:37:58
0
Tinxx :
Prosecution did not meet their burden , bows or not.
2026-08-27 20:20:08
6
Mamma_bear :
No the prosecution was poor all round
2026-08-27 19:46:13
18
Jess| 🎀 :
They never met there burden!!
2026-08-27 19:47:25
14
Anon457 :
I went in thinking she was guilty the commonwealth are the ones that made me think she didn’t even do it at all!!
2026-08-27 23:35:44
7
🇨🇦 Diane 🇨🇦 :
Shes not guilty
2026-08-29 21:59:05
4
Charlotte :
Patrick did it !!!!
2026-08-28 16:09:46
4
karachapin33 :
I think the commonwealth proved Lindsay's innocence
2026-08-28 13:52:27
4
Mis._Monica :
And how about the fact that the prosecutors own witness said she didn’t remember anything she was told what happened!!
2026-08-29 15:20:41
1
Mis._Monica :
They didn’t prove squat!!
2026-08-29 14:26:19
1
AquariusXRP :
I think a lot of people are completely misunderstanding what this trial is actually about. This is NOT a “did Lindsay Clancy kill her children?” trial. She has admitted that she did. The issue before the jury is whether she was legally sane or legally insane at the time she committed those acts, and therefore whether she is criminally responsible. If the jury finds her legally responsible, she faces prison. If they find her legally insane, the outcome is psychiatric commitment rather than a traditional prison sentence. So arguing about whether she did it is missing the entire point of the trial. The evidence, expert testimony, and psychiatric evaluations are being presented to answer one question: did she understand what she was doing and that it was wrong when she did it? That is what this jury is deciding.
2026-08-27 20:57:21
3
To see more videos from user @laughandgrindofficial, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
