I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the Lindsay Clancy case. I’ve watched some of the testimony and have seen a few analysis videos. If you’re not familiar with this case, Lindsay Clancy murdered her three children, aged five, three and eight months, in early 2023 and then attempted suicide. The details are horrific and I won’t get into them. She was left paralyzed from the waist down. Her defense claims that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and that she is not guilty by reason of insanity. She had a televised trial, during which she was seen distraught and crying. Women’s rights groups have embraced her as a symbol of the need for greater awareness and treatment of postpartum mental illness. It’s a complicated issue, made worse by the reductive nature of Internet discourse and short form media. This lady killed all three of her very young children. I don’t think she would have touched them if she were in her right mind (her former nanny’s testimony was compelling), but she should be in some form of custody for the rest of her life.
Jurors are now speaking out following Judge Sullivan’s decision to declare a mistrial due to a hung jury. Before this news came out, it was widely speculated that the jury was leaning to acquit since Clancy’s lawyer asked for a juror to be replaced. That speculation was accurate. At least three women on the jury have gone on the record to say that there was just one holdout. He was a man who didn’t listen to the nurses on the jury, and there was more than one, who broke down the medical evidence for him. This juror admitted he had reasonable doubt but, according to the foreperson, refused to vote as instructed. In Massachusetts, the law states that the prosecution must prove that the defendant is sane. In most other states, the defense must prove insanity. Here’s more of what the jurors said and that interview is below.
A lone juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of the murder of her three children, would not agree to acquit Clancy despite expressing reasonable doubt about whether she was guilty, the jury’s foreperson said in an interview airing Monday.
Speaking to NBC 10 Boston just days after Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial, Roni Carlson, the foreperson, confirmed there was one holdout juror who would not be persuaded to acquit Clancy due to insanity.
“He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms. I was so excited,” said Carlson, a retired elementary school teacher. According to Carlson, the holdout juror then said: “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Carlson is one of three jurors who spoke to the Boston NBC affiliate…
The three jurors told NBC10 that the evidence presented during the trial indicated Clancy was a loving mother.
“Everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing,” Carlson said.
The judge declared a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict.
These jurors are using the evidence and the instructions they were given and are upholding the law to the best of their ability. That’s exactly what they should be doing. I’m not sure how I would vote if I were a juror on this case. The jurors are making an argument based on their extensive knowledge. The public just sees a lady who killed her kids and confessed to it. It’s hard to see her as anyone else. If Clancy weren’t white we would be having a much different conversation, if we were talking about it at all. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will retry Clancy.
I couldn’t be a juror on that case but I’m glad they upheld their oath. I get where the holdout is coming from though. But the commonwealth just didn’t prove their case, that she wasn’t in some psychosis.
If they try her again, they better have better attorneys and experts. Reddington ran circles around them all.
I’m a white woman who has suffered discrimination that ended in misdiagnosis and lifetime disability. 1) the healthcare system is broke 2 it’s especially problematic for woman, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ …, 3. Thanks for making comment ab if Lindsay was a minority woman she would be slammed by society. I kept thinking that over and over!
We need to add the word “allegedly.” The only person who heard Linsey “admit” she killed children was her husband whose testimony was full of holes and inconsistencies. If the police had done their jobs and investigated the crime properly, rather than relying on her husband’s statements, I’m not sure Lindsey would have been the one on trial.
In Massachusetts, if you’re not guilty by reason of insanity then you are committed to psychiatric custody (I don’t remember what it’s actually called). She wouldn’t be out roaming the streets, she would be in a psych ward and I don’t know how they determine the length of time there.
I didn’t follow this super closely, I did see some really good points raised by a woman who was Scotland yard’s domestic violence research specialist. I’ve heard interviews with her before, she studied DV and family annihilators extensively. She pointed out several evidence that weren’t looked into that should’ve been (they just took the husbands word). She said the husband testified that Lindsay told him she did it, but EMS and other medical personnel testified that she wasn’t verbal, which is a big inconsistency. She also said, if you come to a scene where the only person upright is a man, you don’t believe the man. There were just too many things that the cops took his word for.
The interview I’d heard the woman do before was about coercive control, by the True Sunlight ladies when they were trying to help Mica Millers family get Micas law passed in SC.
The 9-1-1 call was not released to the public, but I’ve heard accounts from two people in the courtroom who were interviewed about it. They say once the husband discovered the children he was wailing and screaming and it was the worst thing they’ve ever heard. I do not think he was involved in any way.
The police still didn’t corroborate his claims. They just wrote down what he said and took it at face value. That’s dangerous for everyone involved. She fully could’ve done it because she was failed by everyone that she tried to get help from and especially her husband, but that absolutely does not make him a trustworthy witness.
The husband was not involved, and it’s infuriating to see the conspiracy theories online saying that he must have done it. People are attacking him and his new wife – it’s sick. If LC didn’t do it, why the heck would she admit it? If you were being framed by your ex-husband for murder, would you just sit there and say, “Sure, yes, I did it”
Both the CW and the defense stipulate to LC being the murderer of her poor children. Reddington would have had a field day if there was some evidence indicating she did not do it. The question for the jury was not if she did it, but rather if she was sane at the time, and thus criminally responsible for her actions.
@Lucy are you sure she would have been put in a facility? She was charged with three counts of murder one. No other charges. How do you prove that it was premeditated while also accepting an insanity plea? I thought this was all or nothing and a not guilty verdict would have to be a full acquittal. I actually thought that was the lone juror’s hang up.
I don’t know how that all shakes out. I saw a clip where someone who has expertise said if you plead insanity, you are typically remanded to psychiatric care, and there’s not a trial. The trial was about if she was insane at the time of the event, the DA had the burden of proof to show she was not insane, beyond reasonable doubt. The juror who held out admitted he had reasonable doubt, and did not follow the law or their jury instructions.
Sorry, but I don’t know where you got that information. She was charged with 3 counts of murder 1, 3 counts of murder 2, 3 counts of voluntary manslaughter, and 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter. There were several other lesser assault charges that were dropped. The jury had a wide selection of choices.
There is so much misinformation on the legal aspects of this case, much of it being pushed by misogynistic right-wing pundits who barely finished high school, that I’m beginning to question my own sanity as a licensed Massachusetts litigator.
In MA, she would be sent to a psychiatric facility and evaluated for release every six months.
And if that evaluation found she were no longer a threat to herself or others, the state could contest the finding using its own experts. Either way, a judge gets the final say.
Girl, this is a hot topic! Very divisive. Let’s see if you you can keep your comments open for it.
Anywho, my hot take is that no one should be punished for the rest of their lives over a medical issue they can’t control and was temporary. If she had a history of psychosis and was likely to harm someone else again, I’d say lock her up. But PPP is a temporary medical issue. She is no longer a threat to anyone but herself.
I think your comment is pretty flippant. My understanding is it is not common to have 1 psychotic episode lasting for a brief period of time which never reoccurs. She was never reported to show signs of psychosis prior to the murders, that was a claim that was made after. Also while her psychotic episode is temporary the deaths of her children are not.
Being a threat to herself is legal grounds to continue commitment.
The prosecution’s case did not add up to “this lady killed her three children” better to not comment if you didn’t watch the coverage. The entire case was based off the narrative of the unharmed husband. The other witnesses could not corroborate his narrative and no thorough investigation happened.
Yes, 1000%. If they’d investigated any of his claims, maybe they would’ve proven she did it and in a fully sane move, dove out the window head first. But they didn’t investigate and the claims don’t fully add up. Which maybe he has misspoken ever since something traumatic happened and he’s moved on and has a kid with someone else. I clearly have doubts in his story, who knows what an actual investigation would’ve shown.
I have no idea why this country still doesn’t rightfully point out that women’s medical care during and after pregnancy is woefully inadequate. Heck, it took how long before doctor’s started treating post partum depression. The other jurors did their oath and found that she was insane. It doesn’t mean she is going free, she’s going to be in medical care for the rest of her life. Just reading what went on without the armchair experts it’s very obvious she needed help and people just weren’t reading the signs, or did read them, but it was much too late. I am not shocked a male juror didn’t give a crap and wanted her to go to jail. I won’t get into if she was a Black woman like I have seen other people saying. I don’t care what color she is, she obviously needed help and hopefully this case starts having doctor’s respond better after pregnancy. If the US is going to push this whole no abortions and let’s get teens pregnant, more of this stuff is going to happen.
The puritanical origins of our country are so deeply embedded we don’t see them at surface level any more. But I refer you to the book of Genesis, original sin, something something apple, and a woman’s duty to suffer.
There has been so much fascinating, acutely painful occasionally excruciating and ultimately compelling testimony about this case. Basically, I understand she asked for help and was pleading for someone to listen to her and to take her distress and anguish seriously for quite some time before she and the kids were found injured and dead. And she was ignored, fobbed off, patronised, and generally left to fall through the cracks. Maternal mental health is a minefield and society is callous and casual. It’s like Medea. The kids are the collateral.
Let’s not forget that high-functioning women EXCEL at “appearing” calm and collected even under extreme stress and pain. We’re so good at maintaining a controlled facade, even when inside we are deteriorating. So here is the poor new mother begging her family and caretakers for help, TELLING them she was not well, and they did not take her seriously because she didn’t “seem” psychotic. I mean… Jeebus. What else was she supposed to do?
I can only hope the prosecution begs off and declines to retry her. This is another chapter of America’s War on Women.
I find it very difficult to see this woman as anything other than “insane”. From everything that has been publicly released, she had been severely unwell leading up to the event, sought help multiple times, and injured herself so gravely that she couldn’t have possibly been in her right mind. Wherever she ends up, I hope she finally gets the proper support she was denied so greviously.
I watched the juror interviews on the Today show. I think they did the best they could and took it so seriously. The hold out admitted to having reasonable doubt but made it clear he was going guilty.
I do think they will retry her on different charges. Watching the whole trial. I do think she was in post partum psychosis. And lacked the criminal responsibility to convict. Kevin Reddington ran circles around the prosecution. He fought like hell for his client.
She loved her children, she never wanted to be away from them. She was not in her right mind. We all know this is also putting the women’s healthcare system on trial. She was failed by the system and this is a woman of financial privilege. Think of all the women that did not have the money for the level of care they could afford. Suffering alone and discarded and failed by that same system.
As a woman who has given birth, I can testify to the fact that the work only starts afterwards. And that is precisely when the system, such as it is, drops you like a hot potato.
One, I do have doubts about what happened in this case. When the primary evidence of guilt is provided by the confession of a person suffering from mental illness, who also sustained a life-threatening injury and nearly died, that needs to be scrutinized carefully. The police didn’t do that, and as a result we may never know for sure what happened here.
Two, that male juror sucks. He apparently showed up dressed like a slob, didn’t take notes or engage with the material, and had his mind made up from the jump. That’s not fulfilling his oath, and he should’ve been removed.
Here’s where I am: the reports say that she *strangled* the children. One by one. It is impossible to strangle two children simultaneously. Not to be brutal, but it was not a quick process where she gave an overdose or shot them. She strangled them. That must have been one heck of a psychosis for her not to stop after the first one, because forensic investigators will tell you that strangulation is one of the crimes which takes a considerable amount of forethought before and during the act. I can’t get my head around it. Still, these things do not happen in a vacuum. People must have seen various red flags in the run-up to this distressing outcome.
As to the husband, well, police and lawyers have reiterated that he could not possibly have been present when the crimes were committed, setting the stage for him to be able to take legal action against the people who have been making public statements accusing him. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the next trial, if there is one.
What I find interesting is that in Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove a defendant is sane, while in most states it’s the defense that has to prove insanity.
Andrea Yates’ case was very different, at least based on what came out in court. She had been diagnosed and treated for both postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, and there was a long documented history of psychiatric issues, including severe depression, hallucinations, and multiple hospitalizations after her children were born. She was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity and remains in a state psychiatric facility here in Texas.
Lindsay Clancy’s case seems a lot murkier. She was being treated for postpartum anxiety and depression, but providers at a women’s health clinic reportedly told her she didn’t meet the criteria for postpartum depression. Medical professionals also testified that they didn’t observe signs of postpartum psychosis before the tragedy. Could this have been a huge misdiagnosis? From the outside looking in, none of us really knows.
I also think it’s interesting to look at who gets the benefit of the doubt in these cases. People of color are disproportionately represented in filicide arrests and convictions compared to their share of the population. There are probably a lot of reasons for that, including socioeconomic factors that often overlap with race. The crimes are heartbreaking no matter who commits them, but it does make me wonder whether some defendants are viewed through a more sympathetic lens than others.
Ultimately, I wish there was more attention paid to these cases as a whole, not just when they are the subject of massive media coverage – and I believe Lindsay Clancy should remain in some form of custodial psychiatric care for the rest of her life.
I have been horrified by the social media circus on both sides surrounding this case. So much so, that’ I’ve had to mute any word having to do with it on several sites. At the end of the day, three children died terribly. We really need to have a serious conversation about mental health in this country and what resources should be available to people who need help.
And we need to stop treating criminal trials as “entertainment.” This isn’t a sporting event where it’s your side against their side. IMO, a retrial is almost impossible at this point given the polarization of the public.
The way they spun this case into “Monster Woman Murders Children” instead of “3 Children Were Killed, Investigation Into Parents Pending” so quickly and without anything to go on except the word of the other parent? Fishy. It sure does take the spotlight off of the fact that men have been annihilating their entire families in record numbers lately.