WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
2
Conspiracy - - (+2|-1)
Is lindsay Clancy innocent??? 25 minutes is enough to murder 3 kids and wife, but if wife lives then add time for trip to CVS 1606(old.bitchute.com)
17 commentsbyTom_Bombadil
Add topics

Comment preview

[-]Tom_Bombadil4(+3|0)

Some surprising information in this video...

?

parentlinkreply
[-]newJiminy2(+1|0)

No she admits it

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil3(+2|0)

Well, that's what I thought too.

But then I saw the evidence this fella is discussing, and now I'm not so sure.

She couldn't speak for the first two days, and the original timeline didn't include his trip to cvs.

And her defense attorney was the one who produced a photo of the husband ay cvs, and he changed the timeline from 25 mins total to 50. Her defense was looking out fur the husband who already had a mistress, and now they're married.. no child support. No alimony.

The defense attorney's gone out of his way to defend the father.

These details were never discussed, and they change the situation.

Seems like she was railroaded, or might have been..

parentlinkreply
[-]RickSanchez2(+1|0)

The forensics always tell the truth. Was the father's DNA on the strangulation cords?

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil3(+2|0)

Did you watch the video, and consider the arguments? The housatonic host is a reasonably credible analyst in my opinion.. he's gotten many things right that others overlook.

So I gave it a listen.

You might recall I held the opposite opinion previously, but this guy has identified some interesting facts that appear to be overlooked.

And with the defense attorney is finding covering fir the husband more than his client, I started to reconsider.

If she's drugged enough, then its nor didn't difficult to imagine ways to set her up.

Don't take my word for it.

Have a listen and see for yourself.

I could be wrong. But maybe check it out, and let me know if I sound crazy after; if you still disagree.

parentlinkreply
[-]newJiminy1(0|0)

Well if innocent, shoulda went with that as the defense instead of trying to say she went insane from post partum depression. I watched this trial and actually the reason she did it was her religion, it's something crazy that made her think they'd all go to heaven. The defense attorney didn't want that admissible and the prosecutors agreed, not sure why, I'm not a lawyer, it's inadmissible for some reason.

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil2(+1|0)

Innocence often plead guilty for lesser sentences.

Especially if the defense attorney is in on it.

Seems like he's 100% on the recently remarried with no surviving children husbands side.

Maybe the husband truth to kill all 4, and marry his mistress..

That's the most probable scenario in these family murders.. its the most likely scenario, but he hid his tracks, and had support.

parentlinkreply
[-]newJiminy1(0|0)

there's some kinda psyop going on pitting men against women With this case. It's a fake news video you watched.

parentlinkreply
[-]chakwit1(0|0)

She literally has always said that she did it. No, she is not innocent.

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil2(+1|0)

You heard her confess?

And if her attorney worked against her, then what? Confess for the insanity plea, right? For lesser charges.

Does that seem impossible???

Did you read any of the comment replied below?

parentlinkreply
[-]chakwit1(0|0)

Oh, so I have to personally witness any event in the universe to know it occurred?

And if a frog had wings it would bump its ass a-hoppin'. But frogs don't have wings.

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil2(+1|0)

Seems you're committed to your existing opinion, and aren't interested in conflicting evidence.

Couid be that millions of crazed women's intuitions were correct; But they were presented with a very different narrative.

But, it is odd how things worked out for him and his mistress.

parentlinkreply
[-]chakwit1(0|0)

Further more, "intuitions" are also not evidence.

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil2(+1|0)

Some people have a talent fir sussing out bullshit.. call it what you will.

parentlinkreply
[-]newJiminy1(0|0)

I think that's what they're doing calling out this as fake news...

parentlinkreply
[-]chakwit1(0|0)

"Conflicting evidence" != "you must witness every event you claim to be true", moron.

When you lead with a fallacy, you have no argument.

parentlinkreply
[-]Tom_Bombadil2(+1|0)

Believing what you hear on the internet is also a fallacy.

Some people have the ability to reassess their positions on controversial subjects, when new evidence is presented with a different theory.

Whats do they call the fallacy for believing a misrepresented and false narrative?

It's apparent that you haven't taken the time to watch the video.

Here's a better question. Why do you show signs of dissonance, when presented with different evidence and a different theory?

If the defense attorney is covering up and protecting the actual murderer, then don't you want justice for the brutally murdered children?

Maybe they got the wrong person?

parentlinkreply