Judge Declares Mistrial After Jury Deadlocks in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial
“The judge in the Lindsay Clancy trial has declared a MISTRIAL after a LONE MALE juror BLOCKED a NOT GUILTY VERDICT for Clancy. This man is an absolute HERO!”
Friday morning’s proceedings in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended on a dramatic cliffhanger: Judge William Sullivan announced that he intended to declare a mistrial after the jury reported for the third time that it could not reach a unanimous verdict.
The jury, which has deliberated for seven days, sent the judge a note stating, “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.” The apparent deadlock is 11–1.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that the holdout juror was refusing to follow the law and asked Sullivan either to question him further or replace him with one of the six alternates. Sullivan declined, saying the jury’s note did not establish that the juror was refusing to follow the court’s instructions.
When Sullivan announced that he would declare a mistrial, Reddington asked him to delay the formal ruling so the defense could seek emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Sullivan agreed to hold off, and Reddington filed an emergency appeal.
NEW: Here's the SJC emergency petition filed by Lindsay Clancy this afternoon. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/JhV5sacXHn
— Kristina Rex (@KristinaRex) September 4, 2026
Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt heard arguments early this afternoon.
HAPPENING NOW: Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt is holding an emergency Zoom hearing on Lindsay Clancy’s motion for emergency relief to prevent mistrial declaration @7News #LindsayClancy pic.twitter.com/ZxfxQvVw3o
— Stephen Quinn (@stephenquinntv) September 4, 2026
Court resumed at 2 p.m. on Friday. After announcing that Reddington’s emergency appeal had been rejected by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge Sullivan formally declared a mistrial.
Prosecutors must now decide whether to retry Clancy, negotiate a plea agreement, or dismiss the charges.
The Clancy trial lasted nearly seven weeks overall, beginning with jury selection on July 20, 2026, and ending in a mistrial on Sept. 4. The evidentiary portion lasted about five weeks, followed by seven days of jury deliberations.
When I first heard there was a lone holdout, I assumed one of the jury’s nine women was trying to protect Lindsay Clancy from spending the rest of her life in prison. But when Reddington sought to have that juror removed, the reality sank in: Eleven jurors apparently favored acquittal, while only one believed Clancy should be held criminally responsible for murdering her three children.
America has changed.
The X user below put it best:
BREAKING — IT’S OFFICIAL: The judge in the Lindsay Clancy trial has declared a MISTRIAL after a LONE MALE juror BLOCKED a NOT GUILTY VERDICT for Clancy
This man is an absolute HERO!
THANK YOU for REFUSING to give in to the DERANGED jurors trying to let a baby kiIIer go free!
🚨 BREAKING — IT'S OFFICIAL: The judge in the Lindsay Clancy trial has declared a MISTRIAL after a LONE MALE juror BLOCKED a NOT GUILTY VERDICT for Clancy
This man is an absolute HERO!
THANK YOU for REFUSING to give in to the DERANGED jurors trying to let a baby kiIIer go free! pic.twitter.com/GT43k7bS6N
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 4, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, one out of 12 wasn’t okay with murdering kids. Pretty much says everything you need to know about Massachusetts doesn’t it?
And about Progressives.
Nine women on the jury. Says more about women than it does about Massachusetts.
and two very weak men.
Give the devil his due. That defense attorney could sell grapes to puppies at no kill dog rescue.
Since when does being depressed give you the right to murder?
Pretty much since abortion has been legal.
No one claims that. This case had nothing to do with depression. The defense claim is that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. A psychotic is literally unable to distinguish right from wrong, and therefore incapable of forming mens rea. If she truly was psychotic then it would be wrong to punish her. The common law has recognized that for centuries.
So it’s a question of fact — at the time of the murders was she capable of understanding the nature of what she was doing, or was she not? No principle or ideology can guide us here; it’s purely a factual question. Since none of us were on the jury, and I assume none of us were so obsessed with the case as to have followed every single moment of evidence, none of us can be sure we know the right answer.
If that is truly the case then she should have gotten proper help…good mental health doctors are everwhere. If she was getting assistance then the pop-psyche quack should be held partially responsible…she had an 8 month old, exactly how long does it take to regain post birth footing with a health professional?
One aspect is woman have been giving birth for eons yet we are supposed to believe THIS ONE was a special case and didn’t know what she was doing? She sent her husband out to shop which provides a clue she knew what she was doing, then once she realized what she did afterwards she tried to kill herself…feigning psychosis after the fact to not be held responsible is BS.
This isn’t the first time a mother has killed her children. Even if she had some sort of psychotic break that took control for an hour of her life and compelled her to kill her kids, she can never be trusted ever again and should not be allowed into society. There’s no guarantee that it won’t happen again if she’s feeling stressed.
She was a nurse. Are we to believe she was clueless how to get professional mental health help? If she was suicidal, she would have been hospitalized had she told anyone. Something doesn’t pass the smell test; social media and the lunatic feminists helped Clancy and her attorney (Daddy) build her story. She is now “untouchable.”
Thanks for the explanation. And not picking an argument, genuinely asking how the law views the insanity defense; what about serial killers, or others in diagnosed psychotic states? Is it purely on the line of understanding in the moment vs long term psychiatric issues?
Exactly, if she was long-term then help was abundantly available, if ‘in the moment’ then she has a direct insanity plea…but according to what we know she planned this so it was more than ‘in the moment’ (which people generally agree is a momentary lapse not planned).
She certainly got no shortage of help. From what I understand her prescription was changed at least twice as far as antidepressant drugs go
Just heard that as well…we have seen this play out with ‘trans shooters’ on all sorts of psychotropic drugs, but not an excuse for murder. Had a young man burn down our rural church, a new firefighter…his parents tried to excuse his actions ‘because he was off his medications’. Deplorable. Come to find out he set three other prior fires ‘to be the hero first on scene’…had everyone fooled. Tried the insanity plea…didn’t fly. He got some time but was let out early on ‘good behavior’ by the pop-psyche recommendation…his prior girlfriend was so scared of him she moved three states away.
Clancy belongs in prison or a mental institution. I find this case pretty simple, she can not be trusted and is a danger to herself and a danger to society, as shown by her actions.
Someone would have to be pretty stupid to infer that from her actions. She certainly had enough sense of right and wrong to send her husband away on errands for at least an hour before murdering their children.
Well written, Milhouse. The question of fact is, at the moment of the murders, could she understand or not?
And while that’s a hard one to answer, prosecutors have forever pointed to items of evidence that show forethought and planning. The more of that you have, the less likely the defense can argue that she was incapable.
Like you, I didn’t follow every moment of the case. I am led, through news accounts, to believe that there were elements of forethought and planning on her part. That (if indeed true) would allow me as a juror to reject the idea of postpartum psychosis and find her guilty.
She knew her husband would *try to stop her*, Milhouse, and sent him on an errand.
That’s not just knowing what you did is wrong, it’s proof of premeditation.
Milhouse, to me the fact that she attempted suicide afterwards is clear evidence that she knew what she did was wrong
Here is a very dark truth. My mom- who turns 90 this year told me her uncles and their fellow shipyard workers in the Bremerton/Seattle area used to find dead babies and toddlers quite often washing up in Puget Sound.. This had to be between the late 30s and 50s. The police would always get REALLY REALLY pissed at them.
Think about it- They were local. Because of the description on ages, these were not infant/abortions in some Cider House Rules scenario. These were kids that were never reported as missing.
Bat scat crazy females is not a new AWFUL thing, it’s been around for centuries.
That man deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Has it been confirmed it was a man. The majority of women I know are quite sure she murdered her children in cold blood.
The room was hot enough to melt a brass monkey, and the air was thick with the stink of eleventh-hour panic.Eleven of them wanted to let the woman walk. They had it all figured out, neat as a ledger. Eleven good citizens ready to swallow the defense’s story about postpartum psychosis, ready to sign off on a verdict of not criminally responsible and head home to Plymouth County. They looked at her wheelchair and saw a tragic, broken nurse who didn’t know right from wrong.Then there was the guy at the end of the table. He didn’t look like much—just a pair of hard grey eyes and a jawline chipped out of granite. The foreman leaned in, his face the color of raw beef, spouting thirty minutes of medical exemptions and reasonable doubt.The holdout didn’t buy it. He didn’t say a word. He just sat there, his hands flat on the scarred oak table, keeping his fingers still despite the itch for a cigarette. The No Smoking sign on the wall was peeling at the corners, but he didn’t need a crutch to keep his spine straight. He wasn’t thinking about the doctors or the pills. He was thinking about the basement in Duxbury, the exercise bands, and three kids named Cora, Dawson, and Callan who never got a chance to grow up. He was thinking about how neatly she timed the errands to CVS and the takeout order to make sure she was alone.”We’re ready to call it a mistrial,” the foreman barked, demanding a final show of hands.The holdout didn’t move a muscle. His eyes stayed cold, flat, and certain. “Guilty,” he said. His voice was flat and dry, like gravel sliding down a chute.He didn’t give them a speech. He didn’t have to. He just sat there, solid as a brick wall, blocking their exit, forcing the courtroom down the hall to face a collapsed verdict because one man refused to look away from the basement floor.
Beautifully stated.
Sympathy for a. Cold-blooded murderer but none for the three little children, her own no less, or the husband who she sent out to do some shopping only to come home to…that…the basement. Our judicial system has become an immoral joke (but not funny)….it is being driven straight off the cliff by the practitioners mashing the accelerator to the floor on the way down…and they don’t care.
One Alpha male holdout against nine woman and two beta males who demanded he acquit this murdering woman. Even more galling is the Defense is trying to get the holdout juror, who did his job, tossed for, and I quote, “ for not following the law”, which is lawyer-speak for ‘he didn’t give us the result we wanted.’
‘Contemptible’ does not even cover the appalling evil that has pervaded every aspect of what should be a modern more enlightened society.
The issue with the juror as presented by the defense was that juror was not following the judge’s instruction regarding reasonable doubt. But that explanation was given by the foreman. My question is how do we know it was this person who failed to apply reasonable doubt in making his decision. AFAIK “beyond reasonable doubt” is not supposed to be an exercise in group think. So perhaps it was the others who misunderstood the instructions.
Correct…the argument of who was and wasn’t following the so-called law/rules as given by the judge is suspect, especially since the foreman supposedly was frosted this one man did not follow the group-think so basically threw him under the bus…a total weasel move if true. Worse is the defense lawyer basically chastising a private citizen in open court for not understanding/using ‘the law’ correctly, assuming that was/is actually the case and not some lawyerly tactical smokescreen…that’s his job, not Joe Anybody from Woburn.
The defense didn’t try to get the guy tossed based on the foreperson’s word. The defense wanted the judge to question the juror in person, and determine to his own satisfaction whether the juror was refusing to apply the law as the judge gave it. The judge refused to do that. The appeals court agreed with the judge that there was no need for it.
Understand that, however this is my contempt for those types, desperate to win at all cost by trying to hang one juror who held strong in his understanding and belief (none of us were in there so a slight assumption on my part based on what has beens presented). What is the defense attorney’s proof other than what some other jury person said, which I find reprehensible because it was so last minute when everyone was under extreme pressure ‘to come out with some verdict’, which is also a lousy position to be placed as a non-lawyer layman. This attorney is expecting exact law understanding, not fair.
Ps…This is still a very bad precedent, who would want to be on a jury if the defense can go after you over some technicality?
Well, as I understand it, the judge had assembled the deadlocked jury and had them all together once again agree under oath that they would follow the law as he had instructed them, this after the foreperson’s note reporting that one juror was refusing to follow the instructions as to “reasonable doubt.” Then when the holdout continued was when the defense argued that the holdout juror, whoever it was, had lied to the judge in that affirmation. A thin reed but not unethical.
Further, my supposition is the stumbling block was MA’s law laying the burden of proof on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of a mental disease or defect, or alternatively, even if present, it was not such as would have prevented the defendant from knowing right from wrong nor from being able to conform her conduct to the law.
It is often said it is difficult to prove a negative, and in this case, the 11 may have concluded the prosecution had failed to meet its burden. If so, the murder and manslaughter charges are off the table, leaving not guilty because of lack of criminal responsibility, or outright not guilty.
From watching the proceedings the forewoman’s note didn’t say “reasonable doubt”. It said the juror had expressed he had doubts, But of course simple doubt isn’t the standard. Reddington is the one who claimed the juror was disregarding the law and ignoring reasonable doubt.
Jurors are not required to follow the judges instructions, nor the law…..jury nullification
No doubt the defense wanted the judge not just to question but have that questioning all on the record, and to have leave to question the juror himself (that would have been the next demand). Good for the judge and the MSC to refuse.
The defense didn’t try to get the guy tossed based on the foreperson’s word. The defense wanted the judge to question the juror in person, and determine to his own satisfaction whether the juror was refusing to apply the law
So, how would the defense know what law they wanted the judge to focus on and question the juror about?
Fact: the judge did question each individual juror
Fact: the judge re-instructed the jury
Fact: the foreperson, in her note to the judge on Thursday, did include that a member was holding up proceedings and claimed the member was not following the judge’s directions about reasonable doubt.
And it was at that point the defense lawyer went off the rails.
No Milhouse, the defense demanded that the holdout juror be replaced with an alternate with the Judge wisely refused to do. So yes, the defense did try to get the lone holdout juror replaced.
Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Demands Single Juror Be Replaced for Refusing ‘to Listen to the Law’ in Tense Courtroom Exchange
I don’t think the folks celebrating the refusal to convict or the online hordes declaring they ‘stand with Lindsay’ fully understand what damage they are doing. Perhaps it is for the best b/c now at least their current or prospective Husband, Boyfriend/Paramour can see these folks for what they are; evil. This woman murdered her three children by moving from one to the other and strangled them to death after taking steps to send her Husband out of the home so as not to be interrupted in the act. That is pure evil and everyone who seeks to minimize that or explain it away is demonstrating their own willingness to enable such evil to be committed in the future. Unfortunately in our current social climate it’s gonna be incumbent upon morally sound Women to stop this b/c the pervasive reach/scope of feminism has rendered many and maybe most Women deaf to any entreaties re Female shortcomings from Men. End of my ‘mansplaining’ rant.
Next time I read of a father murdering his family then killing himself I will have the very wicked thought of “Certainly there must have been a moment of psychosis that gripped the poor fellow certainly a jury somewhere would have seen this too.”
The problem is it will no doubt also enter the minds of some homicidal husbands less as a wicked thought and more as a ready defense.
The fallacy of ‘psychosis’ therefore committed a heinous crime being bandied about as some sort of rational defense is a smokescreen…OF COURSE someone committing such an act is out of their minds, or as we see amongst a certain inner city demographic that is hell bent on taking each other out over some perceived grievance…thy simply do not have the capacity to give a rip, which breaches inhumane. ‘The fallacy’ is n9t an excuse…you murder someone you go to prison, regardless how you ‘felt’ at the time…which is obvious: Insane and/or evil.
The really bad part is that We The People actually having this discussion, which does not speak highly of society and where it is headed…away from Christ.
Sure. If, as a society, we’re now gonna pretend that temp psychosis arising from hormonal/chemical imbalances and/or untreated/mal treated depression with too many/too few Rx serves to excuse violent actions ….there’s gonna be a whole lot of dudes turned loose by our courts.
Conversely if as a society we restrict this excuse to Women then we’re going back to the days of ‘women are too emotional/ too prone to hysterics due to their hormonal imbalances to be allowed to vote. For that matter if ‘post partum depression’ is now a default ‘get of jail free card’ then clearly women must be immediately confined post birth lest they murder their children.
For that matter, every Woman, every new Mother is now to be regarded as the potential murderer of their own baby …just as some feminists would claim every Man is a potential rapist. Turnabout is fair play so no whining when even fewer younger men than present seek to marry. Why should they take on the risk of divorce, financial ruin from a Woman changing her mind about her commitment, alimony, loss of assets, loss of retirement plan/savings …heck they’d be lucky to PAY child support given recent events where their Wife is excused for the murder of the children.
As I stated the folks cheering all this have no idea what they are setting into motion and how much tinder and dead wood is awaiting the flame they are recklessly applying. Either this gets knocked back hard and fast or the downstream impact to society will be severe. Fewer marriages = fewer future children = fewer future workers = less taxes not just to repay the $40+ Trillion (and growing) National debt (on the books amount only, not counting unfunded liabilities) but also little programs like Social Security Retirement and Medicare ….
“”For that matter, every Woman, every new Mother is now to be regarded as the potential murderer of their own baby “”
That’s been the case since the left declared abortion up to and after birth to be normal and “healthy”. I’d love to see profiles of those 9 women on the jury. Bet every one supports abortion.
We’re now well into post birth territory with a significant and frankly disturbing level of support among Women for this murderous Woman’s actions.
Chivalry is dead and Woman killed it pretty well sums up where we are as a society. Equality means equal treatment across the board without any special exemptions or social privileges.
Some unknown Woman or one known to be an ‘ish’ is having a problem and may need assistance? Bump that lady, you’re on your own so ‘you go Girl’ b/c a strong, independent Woman don’t need no Man.
That’s the world feminism has spawned. Young Men are making the very rational decision not to become involved with the current crop of young Women who don’t offer any compelling incentives to attract and retain Men in their lives. People respond to incentives and when the negatives outweigh the positives the rational person will usually refuse to participate.
Jury nullification is a taboo in the legal realm, but it is not outlawed or forbidden, simply not explained to the jury. Why is this any different?
It’s not different.
My son commented to me this morning that he believes this is the first example of “reverse jury nullification” that he’s ever seen.
3 small voices sighed…
X2….and that is the whole of the case lest those advocating for this monster forget that detail.
The defense claiming – on the basis of basically no evidence – that the lone holdout juror was refusing to follow the law, seems to me to have gone far beyond giving the client a vigorous defense and into utterly immoral territory.
I didn’t say unethical because I know next to nothing about legal ethics. Maybe lawyers think this kind of sleazy misrepresentation is okay. I don’t know.
Ok course they (lawyers) do…it’s part of the scummy tactics employed to get their client off despite clear evidence she committed three murders of tiny children with planning. Modern day magic show sleight of hand; look over there and not here where the truth lies.
Its Massachusetts. Women are allowed to kill their children up to birth and beyond. If it had a man and he claimed PTSD there would be riots even prior to the trial with every feminist tiktoking about toxic masculinity and the patriarchy.
I don’t know, what’s the actual law? It’s Massachusetts, state law rules, whatever it is.
“America has changed.”
Yeah, but not for the reasons you think.
Before you go placing laurels on the lone holdout perhaps you should consider that the other eleven were in the right.
Massachusetts law on not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is markedly different than other states.
You can agree with that law or disagree as you see fit but the juror’s job is to apply the law, not to ignore it because he disagrees with it.
No one – Clancy included – disputes the fact that her children died at her hand. Note well that she went into cardiac arrest twice that night. Clearly an unsuccessful murder/suicide in my book.
The woman is irredeemably mentally ill. She was that night for certain.
A not guilty verdict here would have meant confinement to a state mental hospital indefinitely. And because of the notoriety of the case she would probably never get out.
There are no winners here. Not the children, the families, or Clancy.
And just to make the whole thing more macabre, the demonic witch of a governor signed legislation allowing abortion up to the birth of the child. I can’t tell you how morose I believe this law is. Clancy sits in her wheelchair and weeps through a fog of psychotropic drugs facing indefinite imprisonment for killing her three children while Maura Healy laughs as she signs legislation that will doubtless kills thousands of human beings.
That’s what’s changed.
Rant off.
>A not guilty verdict here would have meant confinement to a state mental hospital indefinitely. And because of the notoriety of the case she would probably never get out.
And we know this how? Because it seems like if she can argue this crime was due to postpartum depression, it would be fairly easy to show that enough time had passed as to not be affecting her further and thus she was no general danger to society.
Right? Acquital for whatever reason doesn’t impose any kind of sentence.
Heard about a case that the woman was acquitted for murdering her children…kid you not…to s Satan because God told her to do it. Even worse her husband stood by her. She was remanded to a mental institution for 25 years…was let out in five and returned to her waiting husband. Had three more children (if memory serves)…only to murder them as well. She went to prison. Three more children would not have suffered had she gone to prison or been kept behind walls but the do-gooders let her out.
This Clancy debacle is no different. Worse is psyche people think they can read peoples minds…they can’t, not even close.
Ahh, iPad typos galore…’to save them from Satan’…
That woman deserves to be strangled to death 3 times.
She is irredeemably EVIL.
Royal Navy style hanging.
Subotai Bahadur
You got a bunch of downvotes because people who weren’t at the trial, and didn’t hear the evidence prefer to believe that an otherwise normal-seeming mother who is not a sadistic psychopath, and had no identifiable rational motive to do so, could not possibly just up and murder her children. It’s unfathomable. It’s easier to believe that this all was the result of a deliberate, evil choice.
.
The “Just World” Fallacy is a psychological defense mechanism. To accept that this woman could completely lose her mind and commit these unspeakable acts due to a perfect storm of hormonal issues exacerbated by psychopharmaceutical “medical” misfeasance or outright quackery is terrifying.
Nah. He got a bunch of downvotes because he was plain wrong. Jury nullification is a real thing and at the very least that’s what happened here.
Besides. This vile excuse for a woman sent her husband on errands that she knew would take enough time to do what she planned, led her children to the basement one by one and strangled each of them. I don’t give a shot how “I didn’t know it was work at the time” you were at on a mental state. That crime deserves a hanging. The fact that all these other vile idiots are exposing themselves for being disgusting excuses of (barely) human beings is just icing on the crap cake that is this “woman”
“Jury jullification”, “psychopath” etc. I don’t know this and neither do you.
.
But what I do know is, at the very least, looking at, e.g. the school shooter incidents, tne ADD/ADHD brain poisoning of children, lobotomy history, the “trans” crap et al., is that the psychopharmaceutical and psych industries need to have a really good look at.
No question our mental health community is a shambles. IMO largely b/c it has become reorientation from ID pathology then applying a course of treatment with an end state of:
1. Cured
2. Not cured but 100% safe on the streets
3. Incurable and unsafe = locked up w away from the rest of us b/c they ain’t safe
Today’s mental health community seems more interested in handing out ‘hugs and kisses’, coddling patients instead of forcing them to take accountability for their own actions and the consequences. Everyone is a ‘victim:’. Then there’s the patient selection bias issue. Suburban housewife feeling blue? She can come on in and let’s get her a Xanax. Some drugged out psycho from skid row throwing feces at passersby, maybe a stabbing or three under their belt? Oh heck nah, the bulk of the mental health community doesn’t wanna even know about them much less be a room alone with them.
Then there’s the issue of feminization within the mental health field. About 70% of current practitioners are female. For PhD level training females are at 74% of enrolled students. IMO this contributes to the more touchy/feely nurturing non judgemental lack of demanding accountability to create change/progress for patients.
Deciding her “not guilty” on the basis of hormonal issues exacerbated by psychopharmaceutical quackery means we cannot hold women on these pharmaceuticals as legal adults with any capability to supervise themselves.
It sounds like a prelude to repealing the 19th.
Appreciate it.
Downvotes don’t bother me in the least.
As it so happens, this occurred in my hometown. Parents still live there. It’s nowhere near as liberal as people think. It’s as red as Massachusetts gets.
I also know Reddington. We’re not buddies but my company hired him to defend an employee that was wrongly accused of vehicular homicide. He proved the police wrong Perry Mason style. He’s a good man and I trust him.
But what the F do I know, right? I’m just a nameless guy on the internet with an opinion.
If you know Reddington because your employer retained him, can you explain why he wore a colorful pink tie in the courtroom yesterday? Was it a code, or just a random choice from his extensive wardrobe? (Sarcasm intended.)
After the mistrial was declared, I prayed for the prosecutors to have the strength, conviction, and courage to retry Clancy and push harder to seek justice for the three dead children.
Massachusetts law on not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is markedly different than other states.
—————————————————————————————————-
regardless, perhaps one juror found the whole sequence of events leading up to the murder as well as the murder itself were a bit too contrived, too convenient, too organized to view as the result of some extemporaneous psychotic break or fugue
Ms. Clancy is indeed irredeemably mentally ill. The question at trial was whether she was capable of knowing right from wrong. As you and others point out, MA state law is different — this never would have been allowed in my home state of Illinois, where the burden would have been on the defense.
I will point out to you that ‘indefinitely’ confined is almost never the case today. Mental health hospitals are way too overburdened, and it’s possible, indeed easy, for such folk to gain freedom after some period of time (e.g., John Hinckley, who had considerable notoriety). It is much like saying that ‘life without parole’ is as good as a death sentence, when we all know the games that would be played with the former.
No winners here at all.
“You can agree with that law or disagree as you see fit but the juror’s job is to apply the law, not to ignore it because he disagrees with it.”
That’s what most judges will tell you. They’re lying to you.
If that was all the juror’s job was, a judge could do it, and do it way better than a citizen who isn’t a lawyer in the first place. The citizen is there for an entirely different reason: he is a circuit breaker.
“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796; Signer of the unanimous Declaration.
“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1789.
The Maryland constitution requires judges to instruct juries in this principle before every deliberation. No other state (save possibly one other, I forget) exhibits such honesty,
About this: “Before you go placing laurels on the lone holdout perhaps you should consider that the other eleven were in the right.”
I did consider it, and dismissed it.
Given that she sent her husband out to do chores right before murdering them, I don’t have any doubt she knew what she was doing. That wasn’t a coincidence.
What has been published is that 11 members of the jury were going to deliver a simple not guilty verdict. Nowhere did it say that it was to be a “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” verdict. The lone holdout may have not been wanting to have a guilty verdict but have a “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” verdict. Maybe in Massachusetts a mother can abort a child at any age.
Insanity was her only defense. Therefore a not guilty verdict would necessarily mean by reason of insanity.
From what I have seen the 11 jurors were wanting full Acquittal, not a not guilty by reason of insanity.
Now that everything is said and done, it appears 11 did want insanity, so I stand corrected on this,
Not sure that’s the case, Milhouse, ‘not guilty’ without additional qualification was indeed on the table.
wrong! The options the jury had were not guilty/insanity and not guilty
When conformity is marketed as compassion, and control is rebranded as care, the state taps into the feminine psyche to enforce ideological obedience.”
– George Orwell
reminiscent of the andrea yates murder trial here under the lone star
Would a Not Guilty vertict in this case give a mother the right to an abortion up intil the fetus is old enongh to defend itself.
All I can say is she must have hated her then-husband, Patrick Clancy. Had she succeeded in her suicide attempt, she would be seen as a family annihilator. A cloud of doubt that would have followed Patrick Clancy the rest of his life, killing his reputation and social apparatus.
She is a family annihilator who failed.
Indeed. The fact that she didn’t just off herself and leave the kids alone points to the hatred she apparently harbored towards her husband.
You can analyze the defense lawyer and the defendant until the next trial. It’s the one juror who stood against the “hive” mind. He’s the hero. It took an amazing amount of ba//s to stand up to the AWFL’s and the low testosterone men in that room. I would like to think I could do it too.
The prosecution should ask for a change of venue. At least 150 miles upstate from Boston.
So a few points here:
1) The major anger at the idea of her getting away with an insanity plea is fueled by the proven track record of insane leftists and ‘mental health’. If she successfully pleads insanity, she’ll be out in a year at most because a leftist woman doctor will declare her ‘no longer a danger’. That’s not an outcome people are willing to accept.
2) I think a lot of the anger at the Clancy supporters is fueled by the fact that a VERY LARGE NUMBER of them are utterly convinced that ‘the husband did it’. Despite literally zero evidence, and her confessing, and her defense REQUIRING HER to admit that yes, she did it. The insane ‘mommysleuths’ are convinced that the husband is guilty.
I am hearing the same thing about #2, even from some educated women I know personally. There are a fair number of otherwise intelligent people who can be conned by a good conspiracy theory.
Midwits wanting to believe they’re much smarter than they are.
Just like the Sovereign Citizen idiots. It never gets old watching videos of them spewing ‘I’m not driving I’m traveling’ and getting dragged out of their cars.
There is a very fine line between insane and evil. In fact, sometimes they are one and the same. I know that initial questioning on these people is supposed to be pretty much non BS.
Not sure of the defense attorney’s line of questioning to expel someone from a jury who sees it from that true (if unpopular) vantage point. A true psychosis of not knowing right from wrong would not wait for the “convenient” moment to carry out the murder. They either don’t know or don’t care- both are technically insane. But true psychosis would do it with an audience and not care.
You murder your kids- there is no SANE person who does that. However the bar for saying you couldn’t have known right from wrong and could not have controlled your actions to a non lethal outcome would be quite a bit higher.
Also- if you have known insane people or people with relatives who are insane, you know what true insanity looks liek. They are often living in tents and tearing sheetrock off the walls to “stop the voices” and driving their cars off of boat ramps. It’s not a “one off” – they are on meds and often end up in the ER a lot. You have to go rescue them from jail or homeless camps. Their family thanks God when the courts force them to be on meds because they have been a harm to themselves (or others). People who know this would not buy her story.
What’s really wild is a lot of the TikTok “experts” point to “forensic astrology” (yup, you read that right) as irrefutable “proof” that the husband did it and then tried to get rid of his wife.
Wilder still is the fact that these people are allowed to vote, and their vote carries the same weight as mine.
I am going to watch this trial this weekend, but right now here are my takeaways.
Firstly, why the hell are people arguing empathy for this murdering sociopath, instead of seeking justice for 3 murdered children. What the hell have we become.
The Judge in this case FUBAR’d this whole trial. From not sequestering the jury to letting the defense run roughshod all over him and never once giving lead defence attorney a reprimand.
The defense attorney should have been held in direct contempt for several of the antics he pulled and the way he disrespected the judge, IMHO. I mean seriously the judge should have put this loudmouthed moron in Jail for the weekend or at least tell him “i have had enough of your disrespectful and contemptuous attitude and if it continues you will be held in contempt.” The Judge was just a wuss.
As far as the accusations against the holdout juror. If he believed there was still a reasonable doubt that she was guilty then it is his right to make that vote and be damned what anyone else thinks and no one has any right to question that decision. He was chosen for the Jury, not the detractors.
All this BS about him not following the instructions blah blah blah, was/is intimidation and an attempt to discredit his vote and have him removed. Thankfully the judge did hold firm on his not intervening, which was the right call.
As far as the psychosis defense, people in a psychotic episode don’t plan or make strategic decisions such as this woman did. Also, the psychotic break seems to be a bit to convenient especially for someone who has never had one in the past and hasn’t had symptoms of one since. Psychosis is at best a stretch.
Now there is another diagnosis that does fit the evidence in this case and that is Sociopathy (usually referred to as Borderline Personality Disorder in women) Sociopaths do plan they plan very well to their benefit and her plan was detailed and thought out, not something a person in a psychotic break would do. She was a highly trained and experienced Nurse Practitioner, she would have known where to cut herself to know she would survive. The one thing that we sideways on her is falls are always unpredictable and the dice came up snake eyes when she jumped off the balcony and she paralyzed herself.
Psychopathy and Sociopathy can look very similar, the difference is the cognition behind the two. Example: The outcome of this case is a dog is pretty brutally dissected. To accomplish a psychopath would run out snatch a dog and start cutting. A sociopath would make a plan to trap and drug the dog then take to into the house for the “event”. Same outcome, different methods, also a psychopath has the ability to come out of the break and feel remorse for what they have done. Sociopaths typically fill no remorse and have to work to act like they do. That woman feels not a bit of remorse from her behavior in court. To me she looks like a sociopath who got caught.
Compare: Susan Smith was a sociopath who killed her children by drowning them in a car in the lake. She did it because her boyfriend didn’t want children and she wanted to marry him.
.
All the know-it-alls please answer: what was the reason Clancy killed her children. Evidence of any? “Sociopaths” have reasons for what they do.
.
“There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court.” — Clarence Darrow, April 1936. The children are dead, and will stay dead.
.
Lindsay Clancy will never “get off”. She threw herself headfirst out of a second-story window, dropping roughly 20 feet onto frozen ground. The physical consequences were catastrophic, not superficial. She arrived at the hospital in a deep coma with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 (the lowest possible). She suffered severe internal bleeding, lung damage, and went into full cardiac arrest in the ICU, requiring multiple rounds of CPR to bring her back. The fall shattered her cervical spine — specifically causing a C1 burst fracture — which permanently severed her spinal cord and left her paralyzed below the waist.
.
She will live in a box in a prison medical wing or a mental institution, likely for the rest of her life, because in the latter case, she still won’t be in a position to just get out and live alone.
I am unconvinced she will remain locked away in a prison or a mental institution for the remainder of her life. Time will certainly tell if our ‘authorities’ will do so.
FWIW the ‘authorities’ let the assassin who shot President Reagan, WH Press Sec James Brady, MPD officer Delahanty and Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy out of custody in 2016 and out from under all court supervision in 2022. He’s been a free man walking the streets as he pleases for four years now.
She would not have remained locked up. 5 years max before some snot nosed MD or Phd went to a judge and convince them that she was no longer a danger to herself or others and she was set free. I have seen it happen many times.
That would-be assassin was John Hinkley. The Hinkley family and the Bush family were friends for years. The night of the attempt John Hinkley’s brother was having dinner with the Bush family. No surprise john is no longer in a mental institution.
Janitor, I get your point and thought the same about motive. Have you ever met people who are “off” in an uncomfortable way? Did Clancy have coworkers, friends, others who would have noticed tendencies? She committed an evil act. Why? What gain was there for her? To rid herself of kids? Was there an indication she didn’t want kids anymore, wanted freedom? The people who should find her vile have not spoken against her, unless I missed something. The problem is that confinement to a mental institution is not guaranteed to be permanent. This woman should not be allowed in society. Because there is no guarantee that she would be confined to a mental institution, is that a reason to find guilty and reject the insanity defense? Maybe something will come out that she was not who she appeared she was, prior to the post partum issues
What this woman did is unspeakably hideous. That said, albeit “motive” is not part of the law, people still have reasons for what they do. I haven’t heard one. The brain can control mechanical functioning even when parts of cognitive free will are destroyed. (E.g. sleepwalking). I would like to hear some kind of reason that makes at least a little sense, and I am highly suspicious of the brain poisons that psych quackery pours into people so cavalierly. See this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUSH0D9LjSA&t=168s
Motive is not required to convict, but as you allude to, people need to make sense of situations. Here are the two arguments I am seeing: She is guilty because she killed her kids, full stop; only evil people kill kids, especially their own. She is not guilty by reason of insanity, full stop; only crazy people kill kids, especially their own.
Well since you know how to determine why sociopaths do things I suggest writing a book and getting rich, because medicine hasn’t been able to figure it out for the last couple hundred years. You want a reason she did it, she wanted to kill herself and in her sick mind her kids wouldn’t want to live without her, or she saw her marriage ending and wanted to hurt her husband, or many many other “reasons” that don’t make sense to anyone without a diseased mind.
None of which changes the fact that psychotics don’t plan, so your supposition is she is either a sociopath or she is completely sane and did it anyway?
As far as your suicidal empathy for her injuries, I simply don’t care what or how she suffered. As far as I am concerned it wasn’t enough, even if she had ended up with locked in syndrome it wouldn’t be enough. “F” her and anyone defending her.
There are only 3 answers here as far as I am concerned.
1: She is sane and killed her 3 children with a premeditated plan, she deserves to die, preferably painfully and slowly.
2: She is a sociopath who planned and killed her 3 children, she deserves to die and if not then she deserves to be locked in the deepest darkest cell that can be found and never see daylight again.
3: She was psychotic and killed her 3 kids because the voices told her to, she is to dangerous to be left alive and deserves to die, you can’t medicate or alleviate that kind of Psychopathy or she deserves to be locked in the deepest darkest cell that can be found and never see daylight again.
Basically, she killed her 3 children, I don’t care why, make her an appointment with St. Peter and let that judge decide her fate.
I have no sympathy, empathy, or forgiveness for those that hurt children, period.
Sequestering doesn’t work like it used to. I was a juror on a murder trail in the early 1990s (defendant was stone cold guilty, by the way), and we were sequestered for one evening in our deliberations. That was a true sequestering; hotel room, no TV, no radio, no newspapers, no phone (those were on walls and the hotel room had had that removed), etc.
Nowadays, given the portable electronics we all have, how do you sequester? And if the judge and bailiffs were indeed draconian enough, and clever enough, to pinch every device, the jurors would wail about their lack of contact with family, etc.
It’s a different generation and different mindset. Good luck sequestering a jury today.
I will go backwards for this answer. As far as the jurors whining about sequestering the answer is simple, you can sit in jail and we will bring up an alternate if you refuse to do what is required of you for jury duty, contempt of court to jail.
The electronics part is even easier, even electronic device and wifi can be jammed or blocked with fairly simple devices, just install those around the rooms the jury is in.
Not only will this keep them isolated, it would also keep them focused on doing their jobs.
If you aren’t willing to do what it takes to be on a jury there is an easy way out of it. Tear up your voting card and don’t register, that is how most places choose people for jury duty. Otherwise grow up, suck it up, cast your vote and quit your whining when you actually have to do the other parts of what is required.
“As far as the accusations against the holdout juror. If he believed there was still a reasonable doubt that she was guilty then it is his right to make that vote“
You have it backward. He believes she was guilty, which means he was the only one who no longer had a reasonable doubt.
That is what I meant. Thank you for pointing it out.
I will also point out that the judge’s refusal to sequester the jury is utterly unjustifiable.
This case has national attention. You have hundreds of protesters outside your courthouse. You have somebody literally arrested trying to intimidate your jury. And you STILL don’ t sequester them?
Agreed
Somewhere, Mr. Chauvin is agreeing with you.
I have done some research on this and apparently since the advent of smart phones and 24/7 connected devices sequestering a jury is almost never done anymore for several reasons.
It would be prohibitively expensive to create a place that could block all of those devices. The main one seems to be that being seperated from “friends and family” (aka without a device) would be to “traumatic” for a jury.
I am not sure I agree with the second one, but that is our world today.
I can’t remember which state it is but at least one state still has prisons for those who commit crimes due to “insanity” or used to have those prisons.
If you went with an insanity plea, it was called Guilty, but insane. In that case you still got the same sentence you would if you weren’t insane and you just did your time in the Happy House with the nice white walls and orderlies, instead of the prison with grey walls and guards.
This is something that needs to become common again.
You might be onto something. The progressive leftists in Hollywood will pick up on your suggestion and eagerly rush to start writing the screenplay for the sequel to “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” this time featuring a female protagonist.
New York State had hospitals for the criminally insane. There was one in Dannemora, NY, located next door to the prison. It was not a happy house at all. There were some very violent people there.
Retry the case and exclude women from the jury. Then we can get to work rescinding their right to vote. Yes, no more voting — the ushering in of socialist Democrats is by single women college graduates is the last straw.
Everything that is wrong with this country is the feminization of our institutions over the past 50 years. If this trial and the circus surrounding it doesn’t hit you in the face with the cold hard reality, then nothing will.
One can only hope for the impending bankruptcy of the private liberal arts colleges these women graduated from, driven by declining enrollments, small endowments, high attendance costs, reduced federal student loan programs, and no additional or incremental revenue from being in a Power 4 football conference.
And if these insolvencies come to pass, they will surely look to cast blame by claiming it’s the Republicans’ fault.
I would also say that this case needs a male lead prosecutor. These 2 ADA’s were pitiful. Most of the time I thought they sounded drugged.
Was it ever revealed if she strangled them face to face or from behind?
I read that two were found face down but that the older boy was found face up in the dad’s office. He had tried to get away. How horrifying!
History repeats itself, even if it doesn’t rhyme.
Look up this monster, Constance Fisher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Fisher
Insane, yes. Guilty, yes. Three times over.
Insanity is not a defense; it’s a convenient fact for some and a slippery slope.
questions for any Lawyers here:
1) How can she have the option of a straight “Not Guilty” when she has admitted guilt?
2) The judge added the ‘manslaughter’ verdict option after the trial had concluded.
How can that be legal when she was not charged with or tried for and had no chance to offer a defense for manslaughter?
When the discussion regarding jury instructions happens, instructions for lesser crimes can be added.
1) ‘Not Guilty’ is always an option in any trial. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, even with a confession – many trials they claim the confession wasn’t real, was coerced, they didn’t understand what they were saying, they were confessing something else, etc. It’s a heavy piece of evidence, to be sure, but Not Guilty is always an option.
2) Lesser included offenses. I believe the term is ‘sua sponte’, any judge can choose to include lesser offenses at their own discretion, though that varies from state to state.
What happens next?
Can she now be charged with a Federal crime, such as civil rights violation, or murder?
Couple further comments after reading through this:
1) if you find Milhouse and myself on the same side of an argument, you should stop and reassess your own point of view in that he and I can’t agree on the color of the sky usually.
2) note well that no one here sat in the jury box and listened to the entire trial from start to finish. And no, watching on TV is not the same as being there in person. Their job is to apply the law to the facts, not engage in an emotional roundtable (like some people here).
3) this is your daily reminder of what the world looks like under vigilantism. The rule of law be damned. The decisions of a jury be damned. I’ll just sit here behind my keyboard and condemn someone to the gallows because reasons.
4) this to me is a direct result of the destruction of the nuclear family, the notion that modern women can “do it all”, our refusal to honestly face the issue of mental illness generally and postpartum issues specifically. Women have wild hormone swings during and after pregnancy naturally. If someone is sufficiently outside the norm postpartum then that woman is in big trouble and needs immediate care, not “you don’t meet our criteria for admission”.
5) there’s something very Orwellian about a talking head on a TV giving psychiatric care, especially a doctor in her first month of practice. Have you ever taken a psychotropic drug? If Ambien is any indication, they’re horrible.
6) you might consider that the woman supporting LC are not bloodthirsty but rather they recognize what she went through; there but for the grace of God go I.
If the folks supporting the admitted murderer would concede that:
1. she is in fact guilty of murder
2. her lack/ill/mal treatment of her mental health is a separate issue than her guilt
3. nothing justifies/excuses the willful murder of three children (except maybe a mercy killing when trapped in a burning building with no possibility of escape/rescue solely to prevent unspeakable agony in burning to death)
Then I could find some come common ground for a good faith discussion about the abject failure of our mental health community and our public policy re mentally ill. Instead we have go fund me donations exceeding $1.2 million.
As for the mental health/Rx drug angles …I haven’t seen too much discussion/recognition from supporters that this Woman was a Nurse. She wasn’t a medical lay person without any training/experience in situations where conflicting/dangerous Rx combos existed.
No mercy for those who harm children. Frankly I’d add no mercy for those who enable them.
She was not just a nurse, she was an Advanced Practice Nurse specializing in Labor and delivery (Nurse Midwife) who most likely had her own prescriptive authority, which means should could prescribe drugs to her patients. So she had advanced Pharmacology training and would know how to research drug interactions even for her own medications.
I have heard that she had like 30 different prescriptions from half a dozen doctors. That doesn’t say her doctors were doing a bad job, to me that says she was doctor shopping. I would also not be surprised to learn that she had hidden her previous visits and prescriptions from each preceding doctor after the first. That is just a guess on my part.
Even if she did do that, the problem will come with filling prescriptions. In my state, and I presume many others, we have a state level database of when prescriptions are filled by pharmacies. Its express purpose is to prevent people that drug seek from illegally obtaining more pills.
If she was popping from doctor to doctor, then that behavior would be flagged. Regardless if it was opioids or not.
Yes, unfortunately those databases only cover Scheduled/Controlled medications, which most psych drugs aren’t controlled. If the database in your stated covers more than controlled substances then I applaud your state.
Also, most small Mom and Pop pharmacies are not even a part of that system. Then you have Mail Order, which is pretty must not tracked at all.
Then you have the 90 day supply push.
So it isn’t really hard to bypass that system.
That’s another reason that I don’t really believe that she was actually trying to kill herself. She knew how to delete herself and make it stick, Just mix a few of those drugs you have laying around and she could probably just go to sleep and never wake up.
“1) if you find Milhouse and myself on the same side of an argument, you should stop and reassess your own point of view in that he and I can’t agree on the color of the sky usually.”
Doesn’t mean EITHER of you are right in this case.
“2) note well that no one here sat in the jury box and listened to the entire trial from start to finish. And no, watching on TV is not the same as being there in person. Their job is to apply the law to the facts, not engage in an emotional roundtable (like some people here).”
Again, idiot, Jury Nullification is a legal, and allowed thing. Whether or not the evil bitch is/was criminally responsible (hint, she absolutely was), the juror in question had the absolute right and *responsibility* to do what he did if he felt it necessary.
“3) this is your daily reminder of what the world looks like under vigilantism. The rule of law be damned. The decisions of a jury be damned. I’ll just sit here behind my keyboard and condemn someone to the gallows because reasons.”
Yup. She deserves to die 3x over for what she did to those poor kids. But you don’t give 2 shits about them. Just your precious “OMG the *laaaaaaaw*”
Fuck the law if it’s going to let this evil stand.
“4) this to me is a direct result of the destruction of the nuclear family, the notion that modern women can “do it all”, our refusal to honestly face the issue of mental illness generally and postpartum issues specifically. Women have wild hormone swings during and after pregnancy naturally. If someone is sufficiently outside the norm postpartum then that woman is in big trouble and needs immediate care, not “you don’t meet our criteria for admission”.”
The evil cunt had a husband that had been home for 12 weeks of paternity leave. A nanny after that, and then he moved his office home. She had medical support. She was a labor and delivery nurse.
She wasn’t some poor abandoned woman that had no help.
She googled how to kill those kids.
She googled how long her husband would need to be away and THEN SENT HIM OUT FOR THAT LONG.
She then led her kids to the basement 1 by 1 and strangled each of them.
She’s *LYING* about her “psychosis”. She *PLANNED* all of this.
“6) you might consider that the woman supporting LC are not bloodthirsty but rather they recognize what she went through; there but for the grace of God go I”
Nope. They’re all evil. Every last one of them.
There are quite a few here on LI that will pooh-pooh this idea, has anyone considered that Lindsay Clancy is suffering demonic possession? The voice in her head, the preplanning that she did, sending her husband away and then to seemingly attempt suicide all from a person up to shortly before that had seemed normal. So much of our “modern, scientific” culture dismisses this such that not many will even consider it. There are well documented cases of demonic possession that were initially believed to be mental issues.
I have wondered, but I can’t reconcile free will with murder caused by demonic possession.
That would be dependant on what your faith and what you believe. So it’s going to be a personal thing. Me personally, I don’t believe that a demon can possess someone without their willing participation. Now that is not saying that a demon can’t hound someone until they finally just give up, I believe that can happen.
The “voice” is something that is self-reported, based solely on her word. No lab test or measurement can be administered to say “aha, she really is hearing voices,” and therefore this “symptom” is unfalsifiable. In other words, it’s a pretty convenient scapegoat: “the devil made me do it.”
I’ve read and heard people say that LC googled how to kill her kids. Can someone point to that evidence?
I heard that as well but I don’t remember any discussion of it, just reporting.
I just watched the parts of the trial concerning the notes that were sent out by the jury accusing the hold out of not applying the law properly.
What I hear out of that is “This man won’t wuss out and just agree with us so he needs to be removed”.
I believe that the women or at least most of them had already decided their vote before the trail ever really started. Then when they reached the delivery room they browbeat the 2 males into submission and then attempted to do the same to the last man and just lost their minds when they couldn’t do it.
I have heard a lot of folks asking; “What was his reason?” Well we don’t know and may never know, nor should we probably know.
Want to know what was required for him to hold out? If he didn’t believe the defense on a single item. If he thought the prosecution made their case well. Or if after seeing all the evidence he felt that she was guilty. That’s it, nothing more.
Now that I know Reddington is just a slimy p.o.s. I shouldn’t be surprised by his actions, but I believe him asking to have a juror removed just because that juror wouldn’t vote the way he wanted was one of the most unethical things I have ever seen. IMHO
It is quite obvious the women jurors were extremely biased in this case. They had no compassion for the murdered children. They should be ashamed of their actions as as members of a jury. Activists with a cause have no place on a jury. Their actions after being excused are as tasteless as Clancy’s lawyers statement to the press.