@gomez.ellie: Lindsay Clancy Body temp,thyroid, & injuries. #truecrimestory #truecrime #truecrimecommunity #lindsayclancy

brendamallette10 :

he killed kids then her

EastLALatina :

She literally confessed to the crime

Linda Spencer :

I think she’s innocent 💯

user9940963462181 :

Why do some people think that being a nurse makes you an expert on murder and suicide?

lammy :

he had done this its sad but he has done this

loz :

he did it all

llarquiteck :

I think she found the door locked, and tried to get to the basement to her children, cause something in their mind told her to get to the children

Angie Cam :

She didnt have any cuts or gashes on her head surely there would be

iv_c1706 :

She was a natal nurse, that doesn't mean she is an expert in suicide attempts

kathy :

if she was drugged wouldn't that explain the head first

user9039870333689 :

did anybody testify she had Fluid in her lungs?

Ruth Dunsford :

And Why was she shocking wet her hair her jeans the hose was out did he hose her down because all the ice round her was melted

Lindsay mm :

Jeez

tina :

la tiro Patrik por la ventana ,seguro

Renata Nerusilova :

Spousta nezodpovezenych otázek...Patrik a Rachel...kdy se na ně někdo zaměří.

Giogio :

Ja

danielamuntean447 :

spanish natie fan :

she killed the kids in revenge for cheating and then tried to "escape" the sentence by killing herself

Sylvia Aventures :

The defense accepted from the beginning that Lindsay caused the deaths of her children, even after studying the evidence and the details of the case. They then based their defense on the argument that, although she committed the acts, she should not be held criminally responsible because of mental illness and the effects of her medication. My question is: if the defense had reviewed all the evidence, why didn't they first make absolutely sure that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was the person who killed the children before accepting that fact as the basis of the trial? Why not investigate and challenge every piece of evidence first, including any alternative possibilities, and only then argue whether she was criminally responsible because of her mental state? I understand that this may have been their legal strategy, but I think it is a legitimate question. If there were doubts about the evidence or the investigation, shouldn't those issues have been fully investigated before accepting that she caused the deaths? Could this strategy also have been intended to create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind about the prosecution's case, while presenting Lindsay as a severely mentally ill mother rather than a deliberate killer? And could raising questions about the investigation and the circumstances surrounding the killings also have helped gain more public sympathy and support for her? I don't know if that was their intention, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask.