The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part II Draft Elements 09 05 2026

There will likely be a part three too.

But in part two I want to touch on what medications she might have been on.  For right now this is just a draft with outline elements not even included.

But I want to list some research information on a drug that is prescribed for the inability to sleep.  And here is what google AI tells me about it!  Read it very carefully!

"Zolpidem (commonly known as Ambien) is a high-risk medication because it acts as a powerful central nervous system depressant that impairs brain function, carries a potential for dependence, and can cause dangerous unconscious behaviors. "

And if drug companies can list nauseating side effects of medicines that they are selling on television commercials then I see no reason why I can't copy and paste that side effect and safety profile here.

"Dangerous unconscious behaviors" It means that person didn't know what they were doing when they did it.

Now I would say, and that chain smoking wretch that posts on Facebook is going to hate this, that if Lindsay was on that drug that she should be aquitted.

The idea that the guilt and intent does not reside with her.  That is something that are legal framework doesn't accept.  But it needs to be updated for crimes that were influenced by what I would call witchcraft.  And the corporate veil needed to be struck down a long time ago.

 *****'

The Involuntary Intoxication Defense?  I had never heard of this before today.

 "Involuntary intoxication. In this legal strategy, the defendant must show that at the time of the accused crime he was in an altered state of mind, such that he was unaware of his actions. The defendant must also show that an intoxicating substance caused the behavior and that he did not knowingly consume the substance. Alcohol and illegal drugs cannot be used as part of an involuntary intoxication defense. The courts presume that anyone who consumes alcohol or illegal drugs knows or should know the potential to induce unconscious states. Prescription medications, however, can be considered for an involuntary intoxication defense as long as the defendant can show that he was not aware of the potentially adverse effect at the time of ingestion. If the defendant is able...."

There is more to the defense than that.  And it is listed at the following link. Copied and pasted from this link: “I Did What?” Zolpidem and the Courts | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

But it looks like it only qualifies as a partial defense.

******'

Now here is some more ideas somewhat related to the topic.

Who is smart enough to determine dose size and self administration of a psychoactive compound?  And given that we usually know ourselves better than others know us, one could make the argument, who is smart enough to measure and determine the dose size of a psychoactive compound for someone else?  Not many people are.  And the courts are now starting to rule that if you game someone drugs (opiates/fentynal) and it killed them you are responsible.  Which is how it always should have been. 

So I would argue that knowing your limits with regard to alcohol usage is based on trial and error. And what of the young person that gets it completely wrong the first time?

But what is a psychoactive compound, is it really a poison or metabolic insult?

So if you throw a snowball at someone and take out their eye with that snowball the law says that you had the intent to blind someone.

With the high prevalence of children being born with mental defects there is an element of the law that needs to be addressed.  Simply stated it reads like this, "He wasn't smart enough to know anything about his own intent."  And it comes into play because of all the hype of look how we got a job for such and such person and they resemble productive members of society who formerly in our countries time earned a living wage.

Hence the loop around is, is he/she being prosecuted for being an imbecile?  Being prosecuted and convicted for being an irresponsible imbecile?  So that is a hidden aspect of the law that is going on?

I mean we all assume that someone who drank and became violent had a baseline state of responsibility in their life?  That they were either born with the potential or were able to develop it.  That would be a politically incorrect lie!  So now that I have flushed that idea out "they" are going to attempt to make that growing population of imbeciles free of guilt?

Temporary insanity Defense?  It implies you have a baseline sanity being in place in the first place.  A lifetime criminal doesn't.

Is someone that doesn't have a baseline level of sanity in the first place likely to not be able to meet common standards in school?  I would argue that is true.  So we as a country can see the issue is coming!

*******'

A little bit off topic, but not really.  So I read about book burning.  And I have to ask how long before they want to burn that new testament of the Bible? Why you ask?  Because in the passage of the Bible whereby Jesus is asked what happens to a demon when it is driven out of a person Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that a demon is a person, that demons are really people.  Specifically, that they go back and live in a real swept house and that their life, their human life, is far worse than when they started. Yeah, unfortunately, the law needs to incorporate that Biblical Truth.

I have got more to add to this part.  But I have to get a lot of work done and it takes me a lot longer, not for lack of intelligence.

© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy

But with regard to alcohol, the law needs to reflect this with regard to the health care costs that we have to share.  Alcohol being proven and stated to cause cancer.  A factual element.  So indeed does that mean that if you willfully drink alcohol and get cancer that you had the intent to get cancer?  And if it does mean that you had the intent to cause cancer within yourself why should the rest of us pay for your treatments?

You are going to see a lot of blunt semantic work arounds of these ideas.  They only serve as to prevent true human inquiry into them.