Note to @FidiumFiber : if you didn’t want our business, all you had to do was say so. Weeks later all I have to show for this adventure is a driveway that was cut without our permission, no hookup, and some of the worst customer service I’ve ever encountered.
You’re telling me the CW of Massachusetts couldn’t find a single qualified female to discuss issues related to mental health and postpartum?
Because here we are listening the third white male in a row tell us what they think they know about it.
#lindseyclancytrial
It bears repeating: this should be a mistrial, You cannot inject religion and describe the "mortal sin" of murder (a factual question for the jury) once, let alone twice. The first time clearly was intentional and this second time is inexcusable. The witness should have been alerted to the already existing issue by the prosecutor. This had to come up in prep? Was their prep?!?! This prosecution is daring the judge to do the unthinkable and knows he will not: declare a mistrial due to misconduct and end the case permanently. And yes, that would "release" Clancy, which is good for nobody, Clancy included. But make no mistake whatever your feelings are about Clancy's guilt: this prosecution is in the gutter. And I'm only talking about the ethics, leaving their competence and strategy choices for another day.
She has his report in front of her, she knew he would talk about it and she didn’t even tried to stop him. It’s 100% intentional (and it’s the second time they’ve done it in this trial) #LindsayClancy
Just when I thought the State of MA couldn’t do much worse than Adam Lally in the Read trial, these two DA’s in the Clancy trial actually said, “Hold our beers”. 😁
The AUDACITY.
ADA Sprague: “so it’s better to kill them, then have them taken away.”
I genuinely cannot believe those words were just said in this courtroom.
This is a case centered around severe mental illness, psychosis, a mother’s deteriorating mental state, and the deaths of three children and this is how the Commonwealth chooses to frame it?
There are ways to challenge an expert’s opinion on cross-examination without reducing an incredibly complex psychiatric case to a statement this inflammatory.
Unbelievable. The actual gull of these 2 women.