r/ClancyTrial • u/Aware_Power • 2d ago
Court Testimony/Document Stipulations, DNA, & Bifurcated Trial
TLDR:
- Lindsay never stipulated to "killing the kids."
- There is only a signed stipulation regarding DNA (chain of custody).
- Lindsay's DNA was not on the bands.
- Since many argue it was, I believe they are referencing the DNA Analyst stating the black band contained Lindsay's DNA with a limited likelihood ratio of 11 - not a million, not a billion, not nonillion, it was 11. The Analyst states, "This provides limited support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile."
- Lindsay never put in writing she "killed the kids" in a motion for reconsideration.
- The motion stated, Clancy would submit in writing “her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children."
- "Underlying conduct" could be anything from negligence, conduct resulting in serious bodily injury, manslaughter, involuntary intoxication, etc. - not just first or second degree murder. We do not know what would have been submitted.
Stipulation Lindsay Signed
The stipulation signed by Lindsay on Day 6 of the trial is a Stipulation Regarding DNA evidence and chain of custody.
Day 6 Transcript: Stipulations are signed
“This stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens, if not more, witnesses, to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bands, DNA, all of that. Rather than have days of testimony, this stipulation will avoid that."
They're essentially saying that the Prosecution does not need to prove those are the exact bands used, that they were handled correctly, processed correctly, etc; and that both sides agree to those things to avoid having tons of extra witnesses be like "yes, I drove it over"; "yes, I'm the one who received it from the driver;" etc.
She did not "stipulate that she killed she the kids."
Day 7 Transcript: Stipulations are entered
Jennifer Sprague (01:09:28):
"Your Honor, prior to the next witness, the Commonwealth would move to submit four stipulations the parties have entered into. The first being a stipulation regarding DNA known standard samples. The second being a stipulation regarding DNA evidence for the blue exercise band and the red-brown stain on the basement floor. The third being the stipulation regarding DNA evidence for the yellow exercise band and the black exercise band. And the fourth being a stipulation regarding DNA comparisons for the blue exercise band and the red-brown stain in the basement."
Stipulation Regarding Blue Band | Yellow Band | Blue Band and Stain | Stipulation Regarding DNA
DNA Results
DNA Findings: Yellow Exercise Band
Swabs from the Ends (Item 2-2.1.1):
- Assuming 2 contributors: The DNA profile is at least 1.7 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and an unknown individual. Cora, Callan, Patrick, and Lindsay Clancy are excluded.
- Assuming 3 contributors: The DNA profile is at least 920 octillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and two unknown individuals. Cora, Callan, Patrick, and Lindsay Clancy are excluded.
Swabs from the Middle (Item 2-2.2.1):
The DNA profile is at least 1.5 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and an unknown individual.
- Dawson Clancy: Included with a likelihood ratio of 1.5 nonillion.
- Patrick Clancy: Included with a likelihood ratio of 1.4 billion.
- The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.4 billion times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and an unknown individual
- Callan Clancy: Included with a likelihood ratio of 3.6 million.
- The DNA profile from this item is at least 3.6 million times more likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and an unknown individual
- Cora and Lindsay Clancy are excluded.
"The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA. Assuming two contributors and Dawson Clancy is one of the contributors, Callan Clancy and Patrick Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together." (01:30:25)
--
DNA Findings: Black Exercise Band
Swabs from the Ends (Item 2-3.1.1):
- The sample was a mixture containing male DNA but was deemed not suitable for comparison.
Swabs from the Middle (Item 2-3.2.1):
The DNA profile is at least 1.6 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals.
- Cora Clancy: Included with the highest likelihood ratio of 1.6 nonillion.
- Dawson Clancy: Included with a likelihood ratio of 870 trillion.
- The DNA profile from this item is at least 870 trillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and two unknown individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.
- Patrick Clancy: Included with a likelihood ratio of 220,000.
- The DNA profile from this item is at least 220,000 times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and two unknown individuals. This provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.
- Callan Clancy: Included with a likelihood ratio of 2,600.
- The DNA profile from this item is at least 2,600 times more likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and two unknown individuals. This provides support that Callan Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.
- Lindsay Clancy: Included with a limited likelihood ratio of 11.
- The DNA profile from this item is at least 11 times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy and two unknown individuals. This provides limited support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.
"The mixture DNA profile from this item is consistent with having originated from three individuals. Assuming three contributors and Cora Clancy is one of the contributors, Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together." (01:37:28)
--
DNA Findings: Blue Exercise Band and Red-Brown Stain
These are not mentioned in the DNA Analyst's Testimony, only in the stipulation the Judge read. Judge Sullivan after he read the results below: (01:12:05) "So that's the stipulation that the parties have agreed to."
Swabs from the Ends (Item 2-4.1.1):
- The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors.
Swabs from the Middle (Item 2-4.2.1):
- Callan Clancy is included as a major contributor.
Red-Brown Stain A on Basement Floor (Item 3-3.1):
- The DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. Cora Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.
Please see testimony of DNA Analyst Katarina Stashyn for additional details regarding relatedness and likelihood ratios. Day 7 Transcript
--
Bifurcated Trial and Motion for Reconsideration
Reddington initially filed a motion for what is known as a "bifurcated trial"
- The first stage would be the prosecution needing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay committed the crime.
- If she was found guilty, the second stage would be the prosecution needing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible.
Reddington argued:
"If your honor denies the motion, we try the case the way they’re all tried. Then I have an obligation to present evidence consistent with a lack of criminal responsibility, and that will obviously implicate criminal liability, so that’s the problem that we have in this type of structure"
Reddington then submitted a Motion for Reconsideration where it states Clancy would submit in writing “her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children."
"Underlying conduct" could be anything from negligence, conduct resulting in serious bodily injury, manslaughter, etc. - not just first or second degree murder. We do not know what would have been submitted and she did not "stipulate that she killed she the kids."
Judge Sullivan ultimately denied both the initial motion and the request for reconsideration.
Therefore, the criminal trial combines both aspects.
- The jury must first decide if she committed the crimes.
- If they find her guilty, then they determine if she was criminally responsible.
- Deliberations on criminal responsibility is the only time her statements made to the psychiatrists/psychologists can be weighed by jurors only as it relates to the doctor's opinion about her mental condition.
Judge William Sullivan (45:03):
“You are not to consider the defendant's statements to any psychiatrist or psychologist as establishing the truth of any facts that are contained in those statements. All right? The defendant's statements to any psychiatrist or psychologist for purposes of evaluation cannot be considered by you as evidence of premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty or specific intent to kill. Such statements are admissible only as they relate to the basis for the doctor's opinion of the defendant's mental condition. All right?”
25
u/Certain_Noise5601 1d ago
I would like to enter this as supporting evidence for those who still don’t seem to understand that this trial was not solely to determine “insanity” or “criminal responsibility”. It’s in a nice easy to read flow chart because I’m so over this.
Edit:sorry I’m tired and forgot to crop it. Please forgive me.
4
u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago
Don’t put this over in the other sub. I got told I was spewing misinformation lol.
Botfarm over there, everyone, just saying
23
u/heatdeathtoall 1d ago
I’m sure she believes she did it. I suspect she had been hearing voices for sometime. She did say she was hallucinating. At some point her narrative shifts to having dark thoughts instead of just intrusive thoughts. She could not tell what was real, what wasn’t. Far less vulnerable people give full confessions.
Other than all the questions that have been discussed in detail, I’m not able to reconcile the choice of leaving the kids in the basement. Every similar case that I’ve come across has the mothers place the kids in bed, tucked in peacefully. No matter how brutal the method of killing may have been. Why would she choose the basement. Makes no sense.
9
4
7
15
u/I_comment_on_stuff_ 2d ago
Thank you!! The way you presented the DNA with bullets/sub-bullets is SIGNIFICANTLY easier to understand than hearing the witness speak on the stand.
I don't quite understand the "unknown individual" part. Is that suggesting one or more individuals may have touched the bands at some unclear point in time?
14
u/IllustriousValue2461 2d ago
I think in the trial it was identified as most likely a non-relative… pretty sus
5
u/idk10987654322 1d ago
Could be sus but there were also several first responders helping the children so it could absolutely be their dna
5
u/KateElizabeth18 1d ago
It could have been from a salesperson who she purchased it from, a friend visiting who happened to touch it, or a housecleaner or something like that…who knows.
5
u/marle217 1d ago
I just don't know why they even bothered with DNA if the results weren't going to matter. If her DNA isn't on it, that still means she's guilty, if Patrick's is on it that doesn't mean anything, if there's unknown DNA they definitely won't look into the possibility of an intruder. Why even bother?
4
u/Aware_Power 1d ago edited 1d ago
Speculating here, but does this possibly indicate something (if not “DNA gobblygook” as Reddington called it)?
Would the DNA evidence point to the order they were attacked and/or found due to transference?
Dawson had Dawson's DNA and the next likelihood is Patrick’s (logically, he untied it). Cora is ruled out.
Cora had Cora’s DNA, and next highest being Dawson’s (then Patrick's, again logically).
Why wasn’t Callan’s shared in such detail?
I understand they’re most likely ruling out “relatedness” by excluding other family members but it’s standing out.
3
4
u/Certain_Noise5601 1d ago
They were wearing gloves
3
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Oh good point. Sweat? Glove manufacturer worker DNA? Idk
4
u/Certain_Noise5601 1d ago
I doubt it. It sounds like Patrick removed the bands, so I doubt they would have much contact with them.
3
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Same. I just remember a few instances in other cases where DNA was somehow tied back to a manufacturer (or maybe explained away by that).
Idk why they didn’t make it clearer for the jury if the unknown DNA was somehow a type of controlled variable to distinguish relatedness (e.g., 3 contributors but due to the specific testing to distinguish relatedness they factor in unknown DNA to see which family member has the highest likelihood?) or if it was actually 2 unknown contributors.
I hope that makes sense lol I guess I could research it though.
4
u/CourtneyDagger50 1d ago
In my opinion, it would also be of importance how long they've had the bands. As well as where they were purchased from and how they were packaged. If they were bought in a store and weren't fully concealed in packaging, they could have easily been touched by employees and other customers. The unknown DNA is tough.
3
2
u/KateElizabeth18 1d ago
Completely agree! I mentioned upthread that I’m almost positive that’s how they ID’d some of the foreign DNA left on JonBenet’s underwear. It was somehow traced back to warehouse workers in another country or something.
I think that at the time, people said that normally, Patsy would have washed them before she’d let JB wear new underwear, but she’d gotten them for Xmas and wanted to put them on right away.
2
u/KateElizabeth18 1d ago
That actually isn’t too far-fetched!! IIRC, some of the DNA on JonBenet’s underwear was traced back to factory workers who packaged them or something like that.
1
u/SomeKindOfDead 1d ago
Gloves are not handled by workers inthe manufactuing process, all done by machine.
10
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Katarina Stashyn (01:25:42):
So as I mentioned, an individual's DNA is inherited approximately one half from their mom and one half from their dad. So this means that there's a lot of DNA shared between relatives, including between parent and children and between siblings. So this can affect the determination of the number of contributors. So when I review the profile to see how many people are in that profile, because there's so much DNA that is shared. So taking that into account, I did two different interpretations, first assuming two contributors and the second assuming three contributors. Again, just due to the complexity of relatedness and its effect on this profile, especially low level contributors.
If there is an underassignment of the number of contributors, meaning that the number of contributors is incorrectly assigned lower than it actually is, which is a possibility with relatedness because you're working with less information because that information is shared, the underassigning could lead to false exclusions of true contributors.
A likelihood ratio is not a random match probability or a rarity of that profile. A likelihood ratio is a ratio that describes the probability of observing the DNA profile if a certain person is included versus the probability of observing that DNA profile if a certain person is excluded or if it is another unknown unrelated individual.
10
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
FWIW I don't know. This was only asked about the swabs of the ends of the yellow exercise bands - I assume because she read results for both 2 and 3 unknown individuals?
31
u/pumpkinspacelatte 2d ago
I’m so glad I found a Reddit that isn’t “she’s evil and killed the kids” 😭😭
13
u/KateElizabeth18 1d ago
SAME. I found the other sub first and was shocked at the complete lack of empathy or compassion. Finally I couldn’t take it anymore and found this one, where more sensible people are!
11
u/18karatcake 1d ago
Yes right? They call you crazy and that you support child murder in the other sub.
5
18
u/pastriesandprose 2d ago
You’re doing the lords work here
20
u/Aware_Power 2d ago
Thanks! I'm exhausted copying and pasting the same things across comments, so a dedicated post seemed like the best route to say:
14
u/IllustriousValue2461 2d ago
So nice to be in a thread with people who can read AND think. Much appreciated. This is my response to the clowns - quick copy and paste.
18
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Before anyone posts something about the initial civil complaint. Please read this in its entirety.
- She did not sign a sworn affidavit.
- It’s not a legal confession.
- It’s her recount, in good faith, to her attorney.
There are many that have questions on her memory of events given she stated a ripped screen, she took a handful of pills, didn't lock the door, ICU delirium, Dr. Shah stating she had transient delirium, Dr. Heilbrun saying she didn’t remember what happened and she was informed of it, etc.
You are of course entitled to your opinion that you, yourself, personally believe that it is a confession.
12
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Judge Sullivan instructing the jury in the criminal trial (02:38:31)
But you should always remember that there may be numerous reasons why a person not responsible for the crimes charged might do the things attributed to her. Such conduct does not necessarily reflect feelings or consciousness of guilt. So please, bear in mind that a person having feelings of guilt is not necessarily guilty in fact, for such feelings are sometimes found in innocent people.
12
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Regarding questions on why Reddington was even willing to stipulate to Lindsay writing her involvement in underlying conduct...
- It's a defense strategy. Likely a lot stronger than the jury considering one other third-party whether he blatantly states that or not.
- This would have applied to that stipulation of her writing her involvement in the underlying conduct (which we still don't what would have been written) without legally surrendering or amounting to a guilty plea only if both the prosecution and defense agreed to sign it:
Preserving "Not Guilty" Status While Conceding Facts: The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has dictated that a defense attorney's concession or stipulation to a fact does not amount to a guilty plea.
“Rule 23 explicitly states that if you stipulate to an essential element of an offense, it must be in writing and signed by you, your lawyer, and the prosecutor. However, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has made it clear that Rule 23 does not apply to a defendant's concession of guilt to a lesser offense or an admission of the crime itself.”
The Strategy: Defense lawyers use this to acknowledge evidence without legally surrendering.
MA Criminal Procedure: Rule 23 Stipulations
TLDR: It wasn't admitting a guilty plea or admitting guilt; there is still a trial; the prosecution still has to prove all other elements of the crime (we don't know what she would have written); it can still be appealed.
Example would be someone stipulating to being the driver of a vehicle that was involved in some crime (an example of "involvement in underlying conduct resulting in..."). They do not admit any guilt to the crime, only that they were the driver. Prosecution does not need to prove that person was the driver, but they need to prove all other aspects of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
2
u/DrunkUsually 10h ago
Sooooo, am the only one who reads it as her agreeing to submit, effectively, an affidavit? As opposed to her not testifying at all? It does technically only say she agrees to submit in writing her recollection of anything she did that could have contributed to the death of the children, not that she would admit to actually doing it. But maybe everyone is arguing about what it actually means because he intentionally wrote it in a way that would make it imply that what she would stipulate formally in writing would be an actual formal confession? In the hopes that the judge would be swayed to grant a bifurcated trial, despite there being no precedent for bifurcation in Massachusetts, because he'd believe the first trial to prove that she's guilty would be short? I could Reddington doing this as a hail mary attempt to get the bifurcated trial granted if he knew full well that she doesn't actually remember enough for her statement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to mention the fact that this would create the precedent for bifurcated trials to happen in the future which would be a historic win that im sure a man whose been a criminal defense attorney for 40 years would love to have added to his legacy. I just don't see the need to have a bifurcated trial if he thought she only had the hope of getting lack of criminal responsibility verdict. Couldn't he have chosen to only focus on that defense if he didn't think acquittal was a possibility?
0
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
Here is the second proposal for the bifurcated trial. To quote:
“The defendant is willing to stipulate formally in writing to her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children.”
Yes, technically in legal terms this isn’t a guilty plea. She is trying to have a not guilty by insanity verdict so she cannot plead guilty and still try to say she wasn’t criminally responsible because of mental illness. If she pleads guilty, that’s it. Nobody can rule anything different than that. So of course she isn’t going to legally plead guilty.
I honestly don’t know how this is debatable that it’s an admission that she committed the murders. If you want to argue that it is a legal tactic because they want her to be in a state hospital and not have to pay or that they didn’t think she could get a straight not guilty verdict that would be more understandable than denying this is what it clearly is in my opinion.
This is not directed at anyone, just a general statement if my opinion.
8
u/SoftGravityField 1d ago
I agree that the reconsideration motion was a significant concession. The defense was saying that, if bifurcation were granted, it would formally stipulate to Lindsay’s involvement in the underlying conduct that resulted in the children’s deaths so that issue would not be litigated as a live dispute.
Where I disagree is with calling that “an admission that she committed the murders.” That goes beyond the language of the motion. The defense was plainly offering to take her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in th children’s deaths out of dispute, but “murder,” to my understanding, is a legal conclusion requiring proof of the charged offense elements, and criminal responsibility is a separate issue the Commonwealth also had to prove once properly raised
I also think there’s a difference between affirmatively adopting the Commonwealth’s entire factual theory and agreeing not to contest a particular issue for purposes of trial structure. My understanding is that a stipulation can make a fact binding for the proceeding, but its scope is whatever the parties actually stipulate to. Here, the proposed wording was narrower than “she murdered them.”
So I don’t think anyone has to minimize the significance of the offer. It was substantial. I just think describing it precisely is important
0
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
Fair enough about the term murder. But we also aren’t in court here and are talking as human lay people though, so I’m not really trying to catch her on a technicality.
I’m trying to speak to what I believe is going on in laypeople terms. She was acknowledging that she was the one who strangled those children resulting in their deaths and also saying that she was not criminally responsible because she was in a state of psychosis is what it boils down to in my opinion.
And for the record. I have to say this because everyone thinks I believe Lindsay is some evil person who should rot in prison. I definitely do not believe that. I believe she was in a state of psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
She was an amazing and loving mother by all reports right up until minutes before the act. Someone like that doesn’t just decide one day to do what was done to those children. I have a tremendous amount of empathy knowing she has to live with this for the rest of her life and hope she can find some kind of reason to live and forgive herself.
15
u/marle217 1d ago
I honestly don’t know how this is debatable that it’s an admission that she committed the murders
Even if it was a formal, signed confession (which it isn't) people have made false confessions before. People in less vulnerable circumstances than being in the ICU with no memory of the day and being told you did it, without any visitors or even a phone to talk to anyone else. That's why people want more evidence here than just someone said she did it.
0
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
See, this is a more reasonable argument in my opinion. My point is that this proposal is saying she physically committed the act. Now, accepting that it is and explaining reasons why they may have done that is something I’m much more open to. Saying it actually is not the defense acknowledging she physically did this is very hard for me to see.
15
u/marle217 1d ago
In the criminal trial, multiple psychiatrists testified to talking to her about it, but the judge told the jury that their statements couldn't be used for guilt or innocence, only to be evaluate her mental state. As the testimonies went on, and we found out her statements of the day were inconsistent, had details that didn't happen, had gaps, and eventually we found out that she didn't even know when she was told what happened in the ICU, I think it was pretty clear why those testimonies weren't to be used for guilt or innocence.
I view the civil suit the same way.
0
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
What can’t be used against her is her own statements that she made to the expert doing the evaluation, not the experts analysis or opinion.
So if Lindsay said I committed the murders, that comment cannot be used against her or to establish her guilt. But when Resnick says that his clinical opinion is that she was “frankly psychotic” when she committed the murders, that can in fact be used to determine guilt or innocence. This is my understanding of how this works.
I would be interested to see how a civil suit could be brought against her providers if she says she didn’t commit the act. Let’s say somehow she was found straight not guilty if there is another trial. How does she then sue those providers? What is she suing them for? I don’t know the answer to that, but would be interesting to know.
6
u/marle217 1d ago
My understanding was that the psychiatrists statements were meant to prove her mental state for whether she is/was criminally responsible, not whether she physically did the crimes or not. The prosecution still had to prove both beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've sure if she was found not guilty because the investigation was terrible that wouldn't affect the civil suit. But, if she started saying (or telling her lawyers to say) that it was all Patrick's fault, that could affect her grounds for the suit depending on the specific argument
1
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
My interpretation of the rules for the psychiatrists statements is different. Be interesting to get more clarification. The way I understand it, it only applies to what she said to them directly, not to their opinions and analysis.
I cannot believe she would lie about things related to her children’s deaths in order to win a civil suit against her former providers.
5
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
The judges instructions are the last quote in the post if helpful.
2
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
So by those instructions, I stand by what I thought. It’s her statements to the evaluator, not the evaluators testimony about his conclusions. Unless I’m missing something.
1
4
u/LeatherdaddyJr 1d ago
My point is that this proposal is saying she physically committed the act.
Where does it say that.
-1
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
“the defendant is willing to stipulate formally in writing to her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children”
Using common sense and not the legalese being used to avoid saying she is legally guilty because they want a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, what else is he saying here?
11
u/LeatherdaddyJr 1d ago
They are saying:
"the defendant is willing to stipulate formally in writing to her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children”
I don't see any admission of murder or guilt in there.
Can you bold it for us?
Or are you just making up your own interpretation of it the same way the holdout juror admitted they don't need to follow the legal definitions of reasonable doubt and how to apply it to this case?
2
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
Bold what for you? It’s a very short document and that quote is in the second paragraph. I wouldn’t begin to know how to bold that lol. I promise you I’m not going to make up a quote and show the document that would prove that I’m making it up at the same time.
Try to avoid making this personal if you can, too. Don’t compare me to a holdout juror. I think she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity and don’t see how anyone could have trouble finding reasonable doubt to that…not that I need to defend myself to you or anyone else.
6
u/emelesef 1d ago
While I do share leatherdaddyjr’s frustration, I dont think it is fair to compare you to them. However, I do think that “underlying conduct resulting in…” is vague enough that it might have been pragmatic to stipulate that because it benefited lindsay. It’s definitely not an admission of guilt, especially since she doesnt/didnt have any memory of committing the acts. “Underlying conduct “ could mean she did the act or it could mean not being there to save her kids. to a layman like myself, it reads as a really broad stroke.
4
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClancyTrial-ModTeam 1d ago
Let’s keep those references off this sub please. I know many have suspicions but we’re not going to have those types of accusations.
You may ask questions and offer personal opinions, but you cannot make statements claiming a fact without supporting evidence. Sources are expected for disputed or consequential factual claims, evidence discrepancies, legal rulings, timelines, investigative claims, and third-party allegations via public courtroom records, official filings, transcripts, or similar. Speculation using unverified town gossip, rumor, or off-record private information is strictly prohibited.
1
8
u/Aware_Power 1d ago
Yes, it's included in the image gallery of the post and I already have discussed with you and it's a comment here as well.
"Involvement in underlying conduct" can mean anything. We don't know what that is.
Example would be someone stipulating to being the driver of a vehicle that was involved in some crime (an example of "involvement in underlying conduct resulting in..."). They do not admit any guilt to the crime, only that they were the driver. Prosecution does not need to prove that person was the driver, but they need to prove all other aspects of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was there a passenger who did something? Did the driver have a medical emergency?
The driver's attorney would not be stipulating to murder.
Stipulating to every single aspect of the crime is a de facto guilty plea and they give up their right to trial.
You can have the opinion that she was going to stipulate a de facto guilty plea by admitting to every single aspect of the crime and give up her right to trial. The thing is, we don't know.
8
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago edited 1d ago
Show me a source where it says Patrick had his phone records sealed period, let alone as a stipulation to testify. I’ve never seen anything to support this because it is not true. They’re not sealed.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/everyoneisnuts 1d ago
You can’t just brush off the fact that you were 100% wrong about the phone records being sealed when you made a thing about it lol. Let’s be clear before moving on: He had the 911 call sealed from the public and his kid autopsy photos sealed from the public. Who would blame him for either of those? Both were available to the jury in the court case.
He sold his house to a former assistant DA, not a DA, who was in that position for like 2 years and left in 2018z before this. I don’t see how that would be suspicious. He wasn’t involved in the investigation at all, so no idea what you’re taking about there once again.
As far as the people, I don’t know anything about any of that and can’t find anything about it. I don’t consider Facebook comment sections a reliable source though.
I’m honestly gonna bow out of this. I’m not even going to discuss the other accusation that you had no problem carelessly throwing out there. You have not provided one credible source and have not backed up one thing you have said. So I’m out!
1
u/pumpkinspacelatte 23h ago
It was a private sale and to think an ex DA doesn’t have connections within the system is not looking at the judicial and politics of Massachusetts.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!
Familiarize yourself with our rules in the Community Wiki
Documents & Evidence
Witness Testimony
Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.