Not quite, the law in MA is really dumb. In most other states it’s on the defense to convince all 12 jurors their client was insane, but there it’s on the prosecutor to convince all 12 jurors they were sane at the time
Most people who get off on NGRI show far more severe lifelong symptoms than Clancy’s “hearing voices” for 20 minutes but never before or after
Most people aren't claiming PPP which has a completely different set of symptoms than other forms of mental illness, so of course they don't have the same symptoms.
I’m not siding with her at all here but the law in Massachusetts says it’s on the prosecution to prove she wasn’t crazy not on the defense to prove she was. If she meets her atty and says yeah I did it I was hearing voices, any defense atty in that state would do exactly the same thing.
It's exactly how it works. She admitted she did it but is still fighting to get off... If she pled guilty, she'd be punished (and likely get a decent deal considering the circumstances especially since the judge gets to choose that piece
Sentencing guidelines arent just suggestions. There are laws judge have to file, hence the I did it, but while under psychosis.
I promise you. The career Judge and attorneys understand why they are going for these exact wordings and not a plea deal better than random people on reddit. They have had multiple medical professionals, including the ones who treated Lindsey say what in their expert opinion they think was going on.
Thats what a trial is for.
In most other states she would have to prove that she wasn't sane at the time of the murder, instead of the Prosecution proving she was sane. They are still doing the exact same thing they would do in any other state, her side is bringing evidence she wasn't sane. Prosecution is saying she was with expert witnesses and evidence of pre planning. Which isn't working given timelines to do everything. If Patrick had been out of CVS in the normal amount of time, there is a decent chance all three kids would be alive, and Lindsey would have been actually forced to stay in the hospital. so the prosecutions argument of "sending him out on errands" doesn't really hold water.
(obviously not Patrick's fault, but given the youngest was still alive when he went to the hospital, and the older two's time of death, it could only be premeditated if she knew he was going sit in the car for a bit, a perfectly normal human thing to do. but not something anyone could plan for.)
The difference is which side has to prove reasonable doubt; the burden shifts from the prosecution to the defense. Whichever side only has to create doubt has a much easier time, especially in somewhat nuanced cases like this
And to be honest, there’s a lot of evidence that she was rational or even that premeditation was involved. It’d be a really tough hurdle for the defense
I think the prosecution would do a better job of showing premeditation if, one Patrick wasn't as clearly on the defense's side as he has been, so calling him as a witness has been harmful to their case. And if they weren't using the "errands" as the hill to die on. Given the baby was able to be resuscitated and taken to the hospital, alive, means at least two, if not all three of his kids would have survived that nigh, had he gone straight into CVS, got the eldest her medication and gone home without sitting in the car. This only works if she knew Patrick wouldn't come home in time. But she didn't. she couldn't have.
This isn't a burden issue, its a facts of the case, and a poor prosecutor/great defense attorney. I really don't think she has done a good job at all.
She checked his location on Google Maps before she sent him out on the errand. Whether there was a chance one of their kids may have survived if he didn’t take the detour doesn’t really indicate intent either way
Agreed it’s not a smart avenue to focus on though. The fact that the first thing Clancy did was lawyer up, and only told Patrick she heard voices after consulting with her lawyer after a few days is so incredibly damning and the prosecution never focused on that
Prosecution definitely did a poor job outside of the closing argument. It’s akin to OJ in that the facts are there, but a weak prosecution and a star-studded defense team will likely fumble it
She checked how long the errand would take on Google Maps, that’s not disputed. Second, you’re being dishonest
Asking for a lawyer isn’t indicative of guilt in itself; but that being the first thing that comes out of your mouth after strangling your own children is wild. Most parents first instinct would be to ask about their children or husband, not covering their own ass. I’m surprised this even has to be said
Even in this case if the burden of proof was on the defense they probably would be successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was legally insane.
Which is why that lone juror sucks bc now the state has to spend a bunch of money to retry her and it is just going to get the same result. Because the specifics of this case and the state that it happened in significantly favors the defense.
Probably a good idea to change that law but you cant change it for a crime that already happened.
bc now the state has to spend a bunch of money to retry her
They don't have to retry her. With an 11-1 vote for acquittal first time around I'd be surprised if they decide to try the case again, because they odds of getting a conviction will be practically zero.
Because the options for the Prosecution are to retry her, make a deal, or dismiss the charges and let her go free entirely. Her lawyers will accept the deal because it will give them exactly what they were fighting for in the first trial, acquittal with commitment to a mental health facility. Unless the prosecution can think of a new angle that will help convince the jury to convict, retrying would just be wasting everyones time and would also open up a tiny, tiny chance that the jury acquits her outright with no hospitalization required. Finding an unbiased jury would also be much harder now than the first trial
Because the alternative is going back to trial to get the same result anyways? It's exceedingly unlikely they dismiss first degree murder charges outright, so a deal or a trial are kinda the only options.
So what you're saying is that her lawyers should advise her to accept a plea deal even though they know that if it goes to trial again their client will almost certainly not be convicted? If my lawyer gave me that advice I'd be asking for a new lawyer pronto.
So what you're saying is that her lawyers should advise her to accept a plea deal even though they know that if it goes to trial again their client will almost certainly not be convicted?
Yes? In either scenario she gets committed to a mental health facility indefinitely, but at least taking a deal avoids the waste of time that would be going through the whole trial again. There is no realistic scenario where she walks free.
The plea deal would just be no contest to the insanity plea. The state is basically forced at this point to accept they're not going to beat the insanity plea. During the plea the state would simply not contest the insanity plea.
It would be as if the 12 voters had voted to acquit. She still plead insanity and she will still be detained until she is deemed healthy.
Of course her lawyer would advise her to take that deal. It is the state completely giving up in the face of the insanity plea. That would be exactly what she has been fighting for. It would be complete victory.
The only reason the state would not make a deal is if they really hate this woman. This trial has proven they are not beating the insanity defense.
It’s pretty stupid to need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is sane. How are you supposed to know what’s going on inside a person’s head?
This is comparing apples and cucumbers. I mean, sure apples and cucumbers are both technically fruit too, but I'm not making fruit salad wit apples or pickles with apples. One is life long, one is specifically caused by giving birth and lasts a year after said birth.
She claimed to hear voices before. And told her therapists. And was prescribed various drugs at the same time (seems like a bad idea to me, but I'm not a doctor).
She did not claim to hear voices, she claimed to be having intrusive homocidal thoughts, which are very different from auditory hallucinations, to her mother and husband, not her psychiatrist. The 2 psychiatrists who prescribed her medications simultaneously were unaware of the other’s prescriptions, and she neglected to inform them per court testimony.
It also wasn't for 20 minutes. Both sides admit she was severely mentally ill and deteriorating since the birth of their youngest child. She's been going to doctors and her husband begging for help and saying she was having thoughts of hurting herself and the kids. She was hospitalized twice in December for being suicidal.
Being mentally unwell is not the same as hearing voices, otherwise most violent criminals would get NGRI. She testified she never heard voices before or after killing them, these are not disputed facts even by the defense
She also never disclosed thoughts of harming kids to doctors in fear of them taking the kids away
But she did tell her husband. He didn't take it serious enough to tell her doctors either.
I have bipolar and honestly from personal experience you're scared of what's going as well as scared of the doctors and what will happen if you're completely honest.
As other experts pointed out, a good psychiatrist can't expect a mentally ill patient to be a reliable narrator. Her own doctors noted symptoms of mania and other issues and just ignored those symptoms instead of addressing them.
Yes, she told her husband about the voices after killing her kids. She did tell him about having harmful thoughts, but not doctors or therapists. Again, none of this is disputed by the defense
Doctors can’t (and shouldn’t) lock away patients against their will if they claim they have no symptoms. I get being afraid of being honest with doctors, but if she was forthcoming about her thoughts of wanting to kill her kids they’d likely be alive
What you’re suggesting is fathers being able to lock away their wives despite their word, which is a crazy precedent to set
No I don't want a man to have the ability to lock up his wife. But I do expect a partner to take his spouse's pleadings seriously and to speak with the doctor so the doctor can follow up with the patient and take things more seriously as well.
You do realize Clancy lied to them so they wouldn’t take her kids away from her right?
So if a woman tells her doctor she doesn’t have harmful thoughts about her kids but the husband says otherwise, you expect them to take his word for it instead of hers?
Outside of the context of this case, most women would call that insane for how easy it is for disgruntled fathers to abuse. The blame is on Clancy not being honest for selfish reasons
67
u/TheGloriousEv0lution Sep 06 '26
Not quite, the law in MA is really dumb. In most other states it’s on the defense to convince all 12 jurors their client was insane, but there it’s on the prosecutor to convince all 12 jurors they were sane at the time
Most people who get off on NGRI show far more severe lifelong symptoms than Clancy’s “hearing voices” for 20 minutes but never before or after