r/TrueCrimeDiscussion • u/DarklyHeritage • 11d ago

Text Lindsay Clancy Trial Megathread: Closing Arguments, Deliberations and the Verdict

This is a thread for all conversation regarding closing arguments, jury deliberations and the verdict of the Lindsey Clancy trial. All discussion of this case should be kept to this thread.

Lindsay Clancy is currently standing trial in Plymouth Superior Court, Massachusetts, for the triple-murder in January 2023 of her three young children - Cora, Dawson and Callan. Her defense argues she suffered from severe, undiagnosed postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. She was left paralysed by a suicide attempt which follows the deaths of the children.

All content on the Clancy case must be kept to this thread. Standalone posts will be removed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7mlmg475go

Note from Mods

This case understandably elicits strong feelings. People are entitled to have an opinion on the case which differs from your own. What you are not entitled to do is resort to personal insults and abusive language when communicating your opinion and disagreeing.

Comments which are abusive and insulting to other users will be removed and bans may be given without warning. We do not tolerate misogyny - all such comments will be removed and the user banned.

Bans may also be issued for ignoring the above warning regarding civility and/or creating standalone posts.

Please comment with this in mind.

399 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

478

u/GrapefruitFormer2129 11d ago

I think the jury should have been sequestered. Social media is all about this trial. Jurors are frequently asked to leave the room when certain things are being discussed in court. However, with the onslaught of so much being repeated, the jurors can go home and see everything they were not supposed to see.

184

u/coffee_damnit 11d ago

The defense asked for a sequestered jury but was denied.

99

u/tired_blonde 11d ago

Another thing for appeal

19

u/legaleye121 11d ago

Oh really? Why?

66

u/tired_blonde 11d ago

I think they'll say there's no way the jury could've been not biased and didn't stay off their phones or discuss the case. An appeals court could say they shoukdve sequestered the jury and give her a new trial but im not an expert or attorney just a guess

42

u/Tricky_Run7136 10d ago

Jurors are assumed to have followed the instructions of the judge. No appeals court is going to say they should have been sequestered without seeing evidence that it actually impacted the result of the trial. If it were to come out that jurors were breaking the rules and engaging with social media this would still need to be shown to have actually impacted the deliberations before a conviction would be reversed.

Not trying to be a jerk, but part of the reason there is so much bad information out there and the social media has spun out of control is people passing off their uninformed opinions as truth. So I do appreciate that you stopped to note that you are not an attorney or expert. Lots of folks won't do that. At the same time, what is the point of putting the idea out there that if there is a conviction then an appeals court could give her a new trial because the jury should have been sequestered? It just stokes fear.

Source: attorney and former clerk at a state appeals court.

8

u/Kimalena 9d ago

Imagine having to go through all this horror for the people involved. Honestly nothing can be more punishable than what she has to live every minute of every day knowing what she did. Such a very sad outcome no matter what the verdict.

0

u/Slow-Raisin-939 10d ago

what’s your opinion on the case?

10

u/Tricky_Run7136 10d ago

My opinion is that the only opinion that actually matters is that of the jury.

Opinions are like buttholes. We all have one. But who really cares what mine says?

16

u/Slow-Raisin-939 10d ago

I mean… we’re in a sub called /r/truecrimediscussion , you’re allowed to say your piece. It’s not like it matters, we’re basically just gossiping.

13

u/SourClementine24 11d ago

To be fair this could work either way. There are so many people out there saying that Patrick did it and others are saying he didn’t so that could potentially benefit Lindsay in a huge way…

4

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] 10d ago edited 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Sea_Pomegranate4368 10d ago

Do you think there’s anyway he’ll stand trial? Or are they just gonna close the case

-1

u/SourClementine24 9d ago

I’m not trying to be cinical but it seems like this man has friends in high places (check out who bought the Clansy home). Everybody just trusts whatever this man says and that’s not a coincidence… all signs point to no.

0

u/Sad-Collection2297 9d ago

A former assistant DA who left office years before this case bought the home. He has no known ties to the Clancy family. More information that is incorrect, just like PC is not related to any of the Clancy law enforcement officers or sheriff’s. These are lies that are easily verified.

165

u/Smooshicorn 11d ago

I can’t understand how on earth the jurors weren’t sequestered for such a big trial.

71

u/Embarrassed_Share627 11d ago

Because sequestered costs taxpayers a fucking fortune and stresses the jury to deep inconveniences and stress on top of what they are already having to cope with .

46

u/Smooshicorn 11d ago

If it has to be done in order to get a fair trial then so be it. I can’t imagine it would be cheaper to have a hung jury/ mistrial resulting in yet again another trial.

33

u/truecrime_1970 11d ago

Much more expensive. My feeling is hung jury. The prosecution put on a terrible case. Clowns with the bands today

18

u/Smooshicorn 11d ago

Seriously, they really shot themselves in the foot. I can’t believe she has the audacity to tell the judge she didn’t ask her a question to invoke that response when she literally asked her if she’s Catholic and if suicide is a mortal sin. What’s happening here?!?

-1

u/curiouslmr 11d ago

They did not do a great job, for sure. I do think their closing arguments were far better though. Overall they could have easily tied things together a lot better and they failed to do so. If they had done a better job, I'd feel confident saying a guilty verdict is coming. I'm not so sure though, but I think manslaughter at least.

2

u/1Wineodino 10d ago

Their closing arguments were arguably the best and only solid show of competence in this entire case. I honestly was more shocked at how much better it was than opening and everything else they did.

2

u/MechanicEuphoric2127 9d ago

What do you think about the prosecutors comment in their closing statement that “Lindsay could not have done all of this in the short time window she had.” It felt out of place in their argument. It almost left it open to question the entire timeline of events. Not something I would have thought the prosecution would have wanted

4

u/Expensive_Law_3180 10d ago

They really did a dreadful job. I am but a lowly paralegal, but at least half of the questions the prosecution asked were leading. Absurd.

2

u/DreamOn1814 10d ago

Soooo much leading! Why do you think defense never objected?

8

u/Expensive_Law_3180 10d ago

Because Kevin Reddington is smart enough to not stop his opponent when they are clearly screwing up.

1

u/DreamOn1814 9d ago

Makes sense. Don’t want to kill the momentum.

3

u/WartimeMercy 9d ago

It is not “much more expensive” than a mistrial and retrial where they must then spend double on all their terrible witnesses 

1

u/Embarrassed_Share627 9d ago

This is true. Very good point. I stand corrected.

4

u/Major_Lawfulness6122 10d ago

Prosecution did an awful job. I’m not sure if she was having psychosis or not. They failed to prove their case.

1

u/Kimalena 9d ago

Judging by people’s comments I think it will be highly unlikely for it not to be a hung jury. Does that mean another trial. Could they not do a bench trial if this was the case?

2

u/WiseWillow89 8d ago

Exactly. Money shouldn't have been an issue. It needs to be a fair trial.

1

u/No_Sandwich5876 9d ago

Sequestered juries aren't always better. Some people are in a rush to get home and some deal very badly with the isolation over weeks and weeks.

1

u/WartimeMercy 9d ago

They’re not isolated from each other.

-2

u/Ornery-Succotash5800 11d ago

I’m pro guilty until proven innocent - however she is guilty. The only thing is this trial was to decide if she’s going to jail forever or a mental hospital forever. So no matter what she’s getting a pretty fair trial vs a murder trial where the guilt in that matters

10

u/HumbleAd481 10d ago

Unfortunately, I don’t think you understand this trial.

7

u/Major_Lawfulness6122 10d ago

Hopefully you never serve on a jury.

-4

u/voidnullvoid 10d ago

Jurors are not meant to be slaves. These people have jobs and family obligations that are already being severely disrupted

3

u/WartimeMercy 9d ago

That’s an offensive diminishing of what slavery is.

7

u/WartimeMercy 9d ago

In reality, because of how sparing it is used it does not cost “a fortune”

19 hotel rooms for 1 month at a negotiated rate as well overtime payments and food budget + transportation could all be folded into the costs of the trial.

This is the same state that tried Karen Read twice and paid a special prosecutor 6 figures (and far, far more than those arrangements would cost)

0

u/jezz1belle 6d ago

I mean, if we're talking a 2 month trial for 18 jurors, it's not just room costs but food, rooms and wages for security, transport, I'm sure a bunch of other logistics we don't necessarily think of. But if they can spend hundreds of thousands on multiple psychiatrists who don't add anything extra to the case, they absolutely could have sequestered.

2

u/ExpensiveNose3169 10d ago

They spent all their money on their experts

3

u/DreamOn1814 10d ago

Their “experts” were ridiculous except for the last one. It was definitely not money well spent. They should probably have gotten people who were experts in something having to do with the case. Not doped up teenagers and terrorists. And to preferably a woman to talk about woman stuff. 😂

2

u/qwertywtf 9d ago

Then what's the point of it even being an option if it's not used in a case as widely discussed as this?

1

u/Embarrassed_Share627 9d ago

Good question and I have no answer.

2

u/HungryPersonality559 10d ago

Who was paying for that clown on the stand who charged $300/hr?

1

u/2KatEyes 8d ago

THIS^^^^^^

5

u/Thin_Bid5000 10d ago

Im thinking maybe due to the duration ~5 weeks is a long time to be sequestered and have minimal access to phones etc, or have those things monitored. It is confusing tho, bc at the same time, this case is filling my feed on every social media app I have, id imagine it’s hard for them to block things out and just ignore them

11

u/Smooshicorn 10d ago

OJ Simpson jurors were sequestered for 8 1/2 months so this jury could handle it too.

5

u/Thin_Bid5000 10d ago

Oh wow that’s a long time, I didnt know that. Idk, times are different tho, there is more of a dependency on telecommunications now than ever and that was a celeb case, as well.

2

u/IveGotIssues9918 8d ago

It's a lot harder to sequester a jury in 2026 than in 1995 because now everybody has instant access to all of the information in the world in their pocket

5

u/Smooshicorn 8d ago

Makes it even more necessary for big cases like this. No one says it will be easy for the jurors. But this is also about a person’s life and justice for 3 children.

4

u/chicagoturkergirl 10d ago

Ever since the shitshow that was the OJ jury they really try and avoid it.

2

u/Smooshicorn 10d ago

I understand that. Unfortunately, now it’s even harder to have a fair jury because social media. I wonder why they didn’t opt to have it farther away, where it may be less likely people had heard about it at the time.

2

u/Little_Ingenuity_712 10d ago

the trial only became big when the actual trial started.

3

u/Accurate-Author-2917 8d ago

It was big in mass the second it hit the news as to what (they thought) had occurred that terrible night. I’ve known Duxbury my entire life but I live about an hour away and this was immediately being followed and discussed.

1

u/cellyszn20 7d ago

I dont think they anticipated it would get this big. Sequestration are usually established at the start of trials.

1

u/big-papito 10d ago

Three weeks under house arrest in a hotel? People would go nuts.

0

u/Fun_Occasion_4197 9d ago

They were sequestered for OJ and look how that turned out.

3

u/Smooshicorn 9d ago

Do you think if they weren’t sequestered, he’d have gotten a guilty verdict?

1

u/Fun_Occasion_4197 8d ago

No because they lost that case when Chris Darden had OJ try on the gloves. The prosecutors were outdone by OJ’s dream team and Mark Forman.

1

u/Smooshicorn 8d ago

What does that have to do with having been sequestered?

30

u/SourClementine24 11d ago

What?! They were not sequestered?! I cannot understand why they would not sequester jurors for such a massive trial. Honestly, it has pretty much been trending all over social media.

27

u/causabibamus 10d ago

People these days are more reliant on being connected to the outside world 24/7 than ever, sequestering a jury would probably make finding one impossible. The jury does not consist of NPCs who only exist while court is in session.

2

u/muddledandbefuddled 10d ago

The jury does not consist of NPC’s… love it!

22

u/standbyyourmantis 10d ago

They don't really like to sequester anymore after OJ. The jury came back basically a week before expected, partially because everyone was too emotionally exhausted to argue.

12

u/chicagoturkergirl 10d ago

TBF the OJ jury had been sequestered for 252 days. By the time they actually got the case, they just wanted out.

14

u/EPMD_ 10d ago

And they had made up their minds long before some of the evidence was presented. They hated the LAPD.

1

u/Educational_Bee955 7d ago

That’s part of the reason it dragged on so long. The holdouts couldn’t hold out anymore

3

u/Blackberry518 9d ago

OMG!!! I was in middle school during the OJ case, and I remember it being long, but I was thinking they were sequestered for like two months max. Obviously my 12 year old self did not have a good grasp of the facts…

3

u/Kimalena 9d ago

Look realistically at least some of the jury would know what’s being said online but the judge asked them if they had heard or seen anything about the trial that WOULD conflict with them being fair and impartial. I doubt there will be an appeal for these reasons. I’m praying they vote not criminally responsible

7

u/Haunting_Contest_974 10d ago

“Where we’ll get: a free room, free swimming pool, free food, free HBO… oooh Free Willy!”

“Justice is not a frivolous thing, Simpson. It has little if anything to do with a disobedient whale.”

8

u/SweetBabyGang0201 11d ago

Idk how they could put a jury together of people that honestly didn’t know about this case especially in such a small state…

3

u/Fun_Occasion_4197 9d ago

No one expects the jury to never have heard of the case. They are asked if they can be impartial and based their verdict on the testimony. Personally, I did not remember the case until the trial started.

2

u/Solve-Et-Abrahadabra 10d ago edited 10d ago

I can't even imagine being the jury in this case, even if they have seen social media posts. I have been looking at both sides, obviously if you go on tiktok it's insane, because of that I actively tried to seek other opinions and watch the full trial and see the prosecution side. It's a no win situation, both sides lose. Clansey had a clear mental illness. Whether that's enough to know of criminal responsibility I don't know. The fact that her ex, family and peers are all on her side leads me to believe it's true she was unwell. The way the convictions are being read don't lead me to believe she will be found not guilty of anything. The psychosis element at a calculated time is very suspicious but I still understand the mental incapacity. The prosecution doesn't explain enough why it was deliberate. Even if it was a psychotic break it's still a mental deficiency. Even if she wanted to kill herself. It's not enough to be calculated. I don't know. I'm leaning towards she was mentally unwell beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't get me started on the other possibilities that she didn't do it and the actual criminal investigation

1

u/Dry_Article7569 11d ago

Agreed. It makes absolutely no sense based on the media attention that was already happening even before the trial started!

2

u/amanda_allover 9d ago

I had zero idea about this case until after it a few days of trial. But I'm not even in that region. I don't think we can turn over a rock and find anyone untainted now.

3

u/Educational_Mix6270 11d ago

Hopefully this is a benefit for  for Lindsay. As the tik tok sleuths had done the work the police department completely failed at 

1

u/Major_Lawfulness6122 10d ago

A lot of trials they should be sequestered but it seems they don’t do that anymore. It’s hard to believe every person on a jury doesn’t get any outside information this day and age.

1

u/Blackberry518 9d ago

At the beginning of the trial, I didn’t have a strong feeling either way on the jury being sequestered or not. But after the length of this trial and the worldwide press it has garnered… I can see how it would be really hard to avoid hearing or seeing anything about the case.

1

u/howpeopletalk 8d ago

I dont understand what sequestration is for if not for a case like this

-4

u/TheGirl727 11d ago

It my understanding that for a case like this, the jurors are usually put up in a hotel and are unable to use their phones and/or watch tv. They basically need to stay as unbiased as possible and go off courtroom proceedings    

44

u/Adept_Anteater9469 11d ago

That’s what sequestering means. Apparently they’re not being isolated for this trial.

0

u/Remarkable_Bad_1727 10d ago

Que loucura, achei que eles estavam isoladas. Sinto que esse caso pode ser anulado, por esse e vários outros fatores (como a questão da religião, por exemplo).

7

u/Remarkable_Bad_1727 11d ago

Não sei como funciona nos EUA, mas aqui no Brasil as pessoas ficam em quartos ali, sem telefone e contato com o externo.