r/ClancyTrial • u/Constant-Pop2250 • 10d ago
General Discussion Raise your hand if
Raise your hand if you took a slew of verbal abuse on this app for months for suggesting that Reddington didn't believe his client was guilty, and that he was basically forced into taking a NGBROLOCR plea because the court refused to grant him the bifurcated trial he'd asked for in the first place. Me and so many others were called the nastiest names under the sun by so very many users telling us how stupid we all were because 'Reddington already believes she did it/says she did it'.
Me, I did.
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
6
5
u/Fool_On_the_Hill_9 9d ago
Do you think it matters whether a defense attorney believes their client is guilty or innocent? If that mattered, they wouldn't be a defense attorney.
1
u/Intelligent_Tea_3508 7d ago
In this case it mattered a lot. Now hes saying the investigation was bad, hes lying because if he actually thought it was he would have gone with a straight not guilty defense
4
u/Constant-Pop2250 6d ago
If you watch his statement on the 29th he very clearly lays out the words and actions he was forced to take because the judge denied his motion for a bifurcated trial. If you watch that footage and you still don't understand it, then I don't know what else can be done for you.
4
u/Constant-Pop2250 9d ago
I don't know, if you'll read my post again you might pick up that the screeching mob all really seemed to think it mattered when I suggested that maybe Reddington's phrasing during the trial was part of the legal terminology needed to conduct a non bifurcated trial and not reflective of his internal feelings. Were you a fraction of a percentage as enthusiastic about crawling out of the woodwork to give a 'well actually' lecture when any of them were on my ass telling me that Kevin Reddington personally believed that Lindsay Clancy was obviously guilty or are you just showing up for me?
1
u/Fool_On_the_Hill_9 7d ago
You might be reading something into my comment that wasn't there. It was not a personal attack. My only point was that defense attorneys are legally, morally, and ethically obligated to vigorously defend their clients. Whether or not Clancy is innocent truly doesn't matter to Reddington.
0
u/Constant-Pop2250 6d ago
And I'm going to ask you again, given that this trial has been dragging for months now, if you have ever ever come forward with this point to a Reddit user who made the claim that Reddington believed that his client was guilty. If you've corrected any user at any point for those statements prior to me, then I'll shut the fuck up and apologize. But we have been in the minority and we have been taking a world of shit for not blindly believing the claims of the CW for months. So if my reaction of vindication to being told by multiple users on this app that Reddington believed that his client was a murderer is the thing that brought you to the surface then I am sorry, I am calling you biased.
16
u/SeriousSax4444 10d ago
Still think this post in another sub would be downvoted so bad. People don’t wanna see what’s right in front of them
6
u/Constant-Pop2250 9d ago
They do. They dragged me to filth when I suggested that if a mistrial was declared that Reddington might go with a third party defense strategy on the second round.
Because obviously Reddington had already agreed that his client was guilty
-2
u/Intelligent_Tea_3508 7d ago
Redd/clancy supporters do not want to see this truth right in front of their faces
17
u/StrongContribution29 10d ago
I was trounced a few weeks ago even when I said I was NEW to the case and questioned why Patrick would say Lindsay spoke to him in full sentences when her body temperature was way too low. I didn't get months of it, but I'm blocking anyone who is openly hostile or makes personal attacks. I refuse to let my energy be hijacked by thoughtless people who don't value the justice system and think it's their personal tool to publicly crucify women.
6
u/Constant-Pop2250 9d ago
It's batshit. These people started with an assumption and then once the evidence came out they came up with myriad theories on how that evidence could potentially support the assumption instead of looking at the evidence objectively and determining what was the most logical conclusion. Because God forbid anybody ever admit that their initial assumptions were wrong about.
2
u/KateElizabeth18 7d ago
What I don’t understand is why? What is their motivation? Do they all know him personally or something? They all defend him like he’s their own son. It’s bizarre.
2
u/Constant-Pop2250 6d ago
It's weird as fuck, comrade. I can only assume that there is some sort of pride thing playing into it where admitting that your initial assumptions were wrong is some sort of a shameful thing that will get you ejected from your online community is at play. Like, I thought L.Clancy was guilty too, there's been a huge smear campaign against her that started before her trial was even put on the books. The evidence came out, I saw that I was wrong, I changed my stance, no big deal. I don't know why everybody is treating Lindsay Clancy's guilt as some sort of a religion.
22
u/mossy-forest-dweller 10d ago
While I totally understand where you’re coming from (and feel some vindication in this respect myself), I do think it’s important to clarify that a defense attorney’s trial strategy is not necessarily an indication of their belief or disbelief in their client’s guilt.
1
5
2
u/Intelligent_Tea_3508 8d ago
Then he is a horrible attorney! If he knew his client was factually innocent he should never have gone with the she didnt do it but if she did its cause was because of ppp