Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

Has anyone else been following the lindsay clancy trial? What is everyone thinkin? I dont think she done it

Because she then started to kill herself. Patric said she told him the voice said this is your last chance, kill your children before killing yourself

But she specifically said the voice stopped after she’d killed the final child. If this were true, she was no longer under the power of the voice and could have easily phoned 911 as soon as it stopped and she saw what she’d done, even if she then decided to kill herself.

The voice was conveniently short-lived, just like the alleged psychotic episode.

I agree in this case like this. There are too many outside influences the Jurors cant avoid, like all those crazy women outside the court. A sequestered Jury, maybe have been a good idea but its ridiculous how this trial has become like a circus. The amount of support this women had, it crazy. I bet if she wasnt a white, fairly educated women it would have been a different story too.

I also think Massachusetts law about the onus(burden of proof) being entirely on the prosecution is mad and this case is result of that.

x.com/sargon_of_akkad/status/2095458338267897977?s=46

And that would be fine as a juror if you followed the evidence and it showed, for example, that she was doctor shopping to gain access to meds, or to fake being unwell. Or that she was unwell but she couldn’t be bothered with looking after her children anymore so that day she sent PC out for half an hour to do what she wanted to do and also had no intention of harming herself it was a fake attempt etc.
If the prosecution has shown all of this with no reasonable doubt at all and that any evidence the defence has produced does not in any way cause any doubt on the prosecutions evidence then the verdict should be first degree murder.
There cannot be any doubt at all, the evidence shows it. Not, well that doesn’t really make sense but it’s what I think so that’s what I believe happened.

The burden of proof is the same in the UK. I can’t speak for every state in the US as I don’t live there but certainly in the UK the burden is on the crown to prove its case and prove the defendant guilty.

edited to add - just like in the LC case the defendant can try to prove a particular defence eg insanity or cast enough reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case, but the burden of proof is still the same the jury has to decide if the prosecution proved its case not if the defence proved theirs. Reddington doesn’t have to totally prove she was insane, the jury has to decide if she was sane beyond reasonable doubt.

Nope, in England & Wales, insanity is an "affirmative defence' and the burden of proof is reversed - the defendant must prove insanity on the balance of probabilities.

In most American states it's the same as the UK but not Massachusetts.

(Written before the edit.)

The last bit I was talking about the LC case, I don’t know anything about US law only this case and what I’ve been reading

I mean that the prosecution has to prove the defendant is crimally responsible. Pretty sure the UK doesn't have this law.

Most places it is on the defence, at least to some extent, to prove they are not criminally responsible due to Insanity. In other words everyone is deemed sane unless they can prove they are not.

In Massechusettes its the opposite. The prosecution have to prove someone is crimally responsible and was not Insane. So the prosecution have to prove she wasnt psychotic at the time of the killings, beyond reasonable doubt.

So the prosecution have to prove she wasnt psychotic at the time of the killings, beyond reasonable doubt.

...and it leads to the faintly ridiculous situation that a defendant can claim to have been legally insane for specifically the minutes they were carrying out the crime and leave the prosecution to prove otherwise with nothing more than the circumstantial evidence of their behaviour and words.

Nothing to stop a rapist saying "Obviously I'm a mental nutter in general but while I was carrying out the rape I was actually psychotic so I'm not guilty.".

Having said that l, people NGRI live in a horrific setting surrounded by the criminally insane and, I was reading yesterday, typically are never released. So NGRI is not remotely the same as being let off.

I agree about psychiatric hospitals but everyone is given a yearly review over there. So unless she is deemed as suicidal, she could argue that the reason for her psychosis is gone. As she only conveniently had it for "18 minutes". Hopefully the professionals that review her don't let her out for a significant amount of time though.

Having said that l, people NGRI live in a horrific setting surrounded by the criminally insane and, I was reading yesterday, typically are never released. So NGRI is not remotely the same as being let off

I know it’s not the US, but that man who beheaded a fellow passenger on a bus and was deemed insane, was released after a few years. Perhaps it’s different in the US, but, as above, my concern would be LC would be released early having had a ‘miraculous recovery’.

I don't know why you are reposting The Lotus Eaters Bro, they have such contempt for women they don't even thiǹk we should be able to vote!

Sorry but think you are poorly informed about psychosis. When she was last seen she may not have been psychotic but it can be a short period of time that psychosis is present. No lucid mother would have done this not only to herself but her children. Fathers however are wired differently.

Question I have to ask she was hospitalised for a short period before the killings, & husband buggered off after leaving her there & went skiing , wondered who he went with? New girlfriend?

Thought you might be a bit more empathetic having had PND

The prosecution still need to prove she committed the acts beyond reasonable doubt. I’m wondering, aside from ‘Patrick said’ what evidence people have heard that conclusively proves she even did this in the first place. She may well have done it, but where exactly is the proof. Her prints weren’t on the bands or the knife (whereas Patrick’s were), it has been proven he lied about various aspects of that night (such as claiming she told him all about trying to kill herself and the kids being in the basement), the neighbours saw her lying in the snow before Patrick’s timeline, the fact she clearly went out the window headfirst and there was no instinct to protect herself (which is automatic if someone is conscious), the fact basically all the internet searches were found to be done by Patrick (including how to disable the airbags of her car), the nature of her thyroid injuries being inconsistent with the fall, the findings from her watch suggesting a heart rate of 57bpm while she was allegedly committing murder, and the sheer inconsistencies in all of Patrick’s versions of events etc. Even the timeline is questionable. 17 minutes or thereabouts is a very short time to murder 3 children, slit your wrists, cut your throat, jump out a window, and get your body temperature to a level that would suggest you have been out there a while. It was proven that he left her alone with the kids a lot, so no idea why there is a suggestion she had to wait for this random window of time. Even Patrick’s evidence that he couldn’t call 911 when he arrived home because the wi-fi was down is sketchy, and he made no effort to help her when he apparently found her in that condition. I don’t know about you all, but if I found my spouse lying in the snow, I might have provided a jacket… remembering he allegedly had no idea the children were deceased at that point. All of this was actually discussed in the trial, it’s not just random internet speculation. I think it’s very telling that her lawyer told the media he wouldn’t believe Patrick if he told him it was snowing during a blizzard.
Again, I’m not saying she is innocent, but where exactly is the overwhelming actual proof she did this to satisfy reasonable doubt. I’m puzzled by anyone who can claim that there isn’t actually reasonable doubt about what happened in the first place. It you actually watch the trial, you can see her lawyer plant these seeds. Like complimenting Patrick’s boots at the start of the cross. That was a subtle tactic because the CCTV evidence seems to show he changed his shoes between getting the takeaway and going to the pharmacy. I mean how many of us would do that? Sure; maybe he stepped on a dog poo and luckily had a spare pair in the car….. it might not mean anything, but because the investigation was simply reliant on ‘Patrick said’, these things were never explored
The kids actually deserve for a decent investigation of all these inconsistencies and for a much clearer picture to be presented to the court. The police and prosecutors have made a dog’s breakfast out of it.

His daughter, Cora.

& your masters degree in the law or mental health was awarded when?

I’m no longer engaging with people who have jumped into some weird bandwagon or conspiracy theory. If you simply believe she was criminally insane, fine. You do you.

However, it seems like the hardcore ‘not guilty’ crew tend to be a bit unhinged.

Not really, I just like evidence for things… and if you could point to some evidence to suggest she was a horrible mother who intentionally and rationally murdered her children, and what she gained from it, then I’d actually be keen to hear it because we saw very different trials.

Yes. And if TIkTok retards and all these other uninformed women not understanding that killing 3 children deserves rightful punishment because “hormones” it will set everyone back. Good luck in a divorce getting custody. Good luck getting a job with responsibility… and yes. Maybe even good luck holding onto the vote. We forget that we have it pretty damn good in our respective countries as opposed to elsewhere in the world where there still is an actual patriarchy reigning… be careful undermining your own good fortune.

General discussion about the whacky conspiracy theories:

edition.cnn.com/2026/08/22/us/patrick-clancy-conspiracy-theories

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/17/lindsay-clancy-trial-conspiracy-theories-postpartum-psychosis

You made a statement that she doesn’t meet the standard for criminally insane I wanted to know where you got your expertise is this area to come out with such a sweeping statement, & you say the not guilty crew are unhinged. No people are questioning the evidence, but you have made your descision based upon on no expertise but how you feel about the case.

Having just read up on this my thoughts go to the dc. Those poor children.