Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

100% they knew - as did the judge, both sets of counsel and the appellate judge.

The zoom call with the SJC was televised live and counsel specifically referred to the fact that they knew the juror number (it had been stated in the Forepersons notes) but for privacy reasons did not say that number.

The hold out juror was regularly referred to as a he. So one can surmise that he was one of the three male jurors.

I read somewhere that the hearing on 29th Sept is where Reddington will ask for a rule 25 order, something about how the judge can rule that the prosecution failed to adequately prove the case. I really hope he succeeds with that motion.

She had a history of psychiatric issues but psychosis was never recorded at the time, and like Lindsay it was a retroactive evaluation.

And if her case had happened in America people would have been harsher on her than they had been on Lindsay I reckon, there was a large gap between killing the first 2 children and killing the last because she had to go and pick him up from school, she then brought him to Tesco for a roll, let him watch TV when they got back and then she said she didn't actually want to kill him because he was being so good, and she thought about bringing him to a friends house, but then ultimately decided that no she'd have to kill him because she'd already killed his siblings.

Deirdre has been out on unaccompanied day release since 2025, I don't think this means that she can just do what she wants though, I believe mainly in these situations the unaccompanied day release allows them to go to a job or some kind of training.

Imagine!
It's my understanding that the judge can only rule not guilty, rather than NGRI, in which case there would be an even less desirable result for the hold out juror.

Probably unlikely to succeed as the jury weren't polled so they may say that it could have been 11-1 guilty for all they know.

It was indeed a car crash.
They oversold and under delivered from the opening statement, they made out that the jury were going to hear of a controlling tyrant ruling the house with an iron fist and how she was out living her best life in the build up to the murders.

None of their witnesses gave them what they wanted to hear, Patrick and the nanny wouldn't go along with the controlling narrative at all. Everyone said she was struggling massively.

I did think the CW closing statement was stronger than the defences, until they got to the last line where they said something like how she had left her kids on the basement floor discarded like broken toys after she was done playing the game.

Yet nothing in any of the evidence suggested she say her kids as playthings to discard.

I think the rule 25 motion has to be submitted by the defence within 5 days. But when that is actually heard / ruled upon I don’t know.

Someone upthread asked if a non jury trial was a possibility. I stand corrected. There could be a bench trial but only if the DA agreed to reduce the charge to something below 1st degree murder.

In the second note they said 'Juror number x' so they all knew which juror it was.

I agree with this. Their massive hurdle was always what was her motive - even thought it’s not necessary to prove motive.

But mothers who kill out of the blue (without a history of harming / abusing their children, the children being “in the way” of a new life / new partner) is so incredibly rare. The idea that it was because she was a control freak was really not compelling at all.

The CW presented the motive as LC being fed up with motherhood and wanted to go back to her old life but none of the evidence the presented showed that, only that she was an involved loving mother.
She was doctor shopping for access to pills, she planned it so she wasn’t mentally ill but then she was mentally ill but not psychotic.
I have no idea what they were going with.
Same as the exercise bands. They were tied then they weren’t tied. So which was it

Their only option that would have gave them a chance was to say it was altruistic filicide but then to hammer home that no matter how sorry the jury feel for her she would still be criminally responsible.

But even then there's such a huge hurdle there, if someone is desperately suicidal and then reaches a point where they think they have to die and their kids have to go with them, I wonder how they can convince the jury that she did in fact at the time retain the ability to conform her behaviour to the law despite her mental illness. That's a huge hurdle because many, if not most are going to think but where was that capacity exactly if that was her mental state?

But putting on a case making out she was controlling and having a great time in the lead up, but then following through with literally nothing that pointed to that was a crazy strategy.

Yeah, it's widely accepted the CW case was dreadful and they changed their theory of the case half way through. At the next trial I'm sure they'll fix that.

But even then there's such a huge hurdle there, if someone is desperately suicidal and then reaches a point where they think they have to die and their kids have to go with them, I wonder how they can convince the jury that she did in fact at the time retain the ability to conform her behaviour to the law despite her mental illness.

They manage with all the other surviving Family annihilators.

Personally I think there's a low chance of that because the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder is planning, and planning is inherently part of the prosecution case.

Yes the exercise bands....in their opening statement the DA said the bands had been left wrapped around their necks and Patrick had to remove them, Patrick testified they were wrapped and had to remove them, one of the first responders also said he saw Patrick removing them.

But then the DA tries to claim they weren't tied on in any way, does a bizarre demo where she looped them loosely in her hand and dropped them on the table to show that they just fall apart and acted like it was the defence witness who was being ridiculous.

Completely bizarre.

They were all over the place I don’t know which way they were going it seemed like they were going every way and hoping something would stick.
I have no doubt they’ll change tack because they’ll have to but I don’t know which way they’ll go because the planning element, therefore not mentally unwell, is a requirement of first degree murder.
They didn’t prove their case in the first trial how are they going to prove it in the second trial.
I also don’t know how far they can change their stance, it’s not going to look good for them if they suddenly present a totally different trial. It’s not like people will forget what the or the witnesses have said previously. And I doubt they’ll find 12 people who also don’t remember

Of course it will be a totally different trial from the prosecution, their first attempt was dreadful.

They completely changed their stance in this trial. They started off with a ludicrous theory of the case, saying she was sane and ended up saying she was insane but didn't meet the m'thingy test.

So at the next trial they'll get more personable prosecutors, better expert witnesses, they'll start with the theory of the case they ended with. A better jury selection strategy. And they will leave the planning in - it's critical evidence of her state of mind. They won't want to repeat the last shit show.

One thing that puzzles me is that in the post indictment arraignment the prosecution says when Patrick went down to the basement he turned right towards the office and they know he turned right because they heard him screaming on the 911 call and then he says Dawson's name. This is backed up by the first responder that heard Patrick scream and looked into the basement and saw him in the office unwrapping the exercise band. Then she goes on to describe him finding Cora and Callan. But in court Patrick says he turned left and found Cora first, then Callan and had to look for Dawson. I know the prosecution was all over the place but this seems like a huge discrepancy
Another thing that's bugging me is the officer that took Lindsay's clothes into evidence. He describes a shirt, pants and what he believed to be a scarf but there was no scarf mentioned or presented in court when prosecution brought out the clothes Lindsay was wearing that night.

And yet despite this long history of psychosis, she must have been cleared at some level, one or more times, to be a carer for her children again? I don't know the case at all but it is odd - if they were so bad they wouldn't have been allowed to care for their kids again surely. It suggests you really can't always tell who is dangerous from who isn't until there's violence.

The showing of the clothes was absolutely awful and the prosecuter had difficulty opening the bags as well.

She didn't have a long history of psychosis at all, she was hospitalised once but psychosis had never been reported. Before she was released they did phone her husband and ask him something like did he have any concerns about her with the children, but that was it.

Just like with Lindsay Clancy, Deirdre Morley was diagnosed as being psychotic retroactively, but throughout this case when people compare them people completely exaggerate about the Deirdre Morley case in order to make out that Lindsay was a lot worse and nothing like Deirdre.

Ah, sorry - I haven't followed either case and am just going on what others are saying and trying to make sense of it all.

No I'm sorry if you thought my post was being blunt towards you, I was just correcting the person you responded to who said Deirdre had a long history of psychosis!

I didn't think you were being blunt, don't worry!

Yes one of the police said he believed one of the pieces of clothing was a scarf, and her clothes had been cut off her.

The 'scarf' wasn't presented in court but the picture was shown and it is scarf shaped, but then the edges are jagged like it was a piece of material that was cut but then they said she just had a bra, tank top and jeans which were also shown so if the item wasn't a scarf I don't know what else it could have been.

Maybe she could have had it on her head, she did wear headbands in her pics but this piece of material would have been too big so I don't know.

It’s actually ridiculous how this wasn’t even mentioned in the trial, how PCs account of going into the basement was totally different from what was said by the prosecutor in the post indictment arraignment.
They know which way he went and who he found first because it’s in the 911 call but PC said something totally different on the stand and no one mentioned it?
The first responder also said he heard a scream and saw PC with Dawson so he found him first

I can’t understand what’s going on and why Reddington didn’t question him about it.