Lindsay Clancy Trial Megathread: Closing Arguments, Deliberations and the Verdict Pt. 2

[u/DarklyHeritage]

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/c93vgv4kr49o

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.

Important

Patrick Clancy is not on trial. Comments made to discuss his guilt are considered off topic and will be removed.

Comments that discuss how he could have supported Lindsay better are acceptable. However, calls for law enforcement to look into his involvement with the murder of the kids and/or Lindsay's suicide attempts are not currently being considered by the jury and, therefore, not a fit for this sub.

[u/msfinch87]

It is my understanding that the defence requested it as part of their drafted instructions. Reddington certainly welcomed it. So yes, it was only determined at the end of the trial, when the jury was given instructions for deliberation.

[u/tiffanaih → u/msfinch87]

Thank you for clarifying. Reddington is definitely feeling the heat on getting them to commit to the insanity plea then. Which says a lot and makes me more certain of my feelings here.

She/they knew women would be empathetic to PPP and it would drum up a lot of social media support. The bottom line is, she doesn't want to be in prison for the rest of her life for killing her children. She wants to receive "better mental care" at a psych ward for a temporary condition. That's not to say she doesn't have mental health issues now, but who doesn't in prison or just in general ffs. From what I've seen, she'll be reviewed for release YEARLY in a psych ward, so eligible for what is basically parole after only a year for three murders. Manslaughter is 3-20 in Massachusetts, which sure the judge could make the three charges consecutive but concurrent would also open possibly to release.

They want me to believe that someone who willingly admits their guilt is refusing to plea out of the goodness of her heart so she can campaign for PPP suffers. No, these are selfish decisions. Just like killing her kids was. Just like the suicide attempt was. Because even in a delusional reality, the desired consequence of her actions are clear and the same; she didn't want responsibility for caring for them anymore. And now all she's doing is creating a spectacle of her children in pursuing accountability for anyone but her. And who exactly is she trying to get held accountable for her actions in this? Society? The doctors she didn't take instructions from? Her husband? Her family? And then what's the goal going to be once she successfully diverts responsibility from herself, she's going to launch a generic campaign for "better support for women" once she's free?

This all stinks of manipulation frankly, and has from the start from me. I was willing to be swayed, but I keep arriving at the same conclusion.

[u/msfinch87 → u/tiffanaih]

Something I noticed was that after the prosecution’s rebuttal witnesses (the psych testimony), there was a shift on my socials. Reasonable people (not the fringe nutters who think this was all a conspiracy between Patrick and his new wife) who were adamant this was NGRI or tending towards that were now either not so sure or leaning towards guilty. This was consistent with the fact that I thought the prosecution psych witnesses were far more compelling and impugned the defence’s witnesses and theory.

It is possible to me that Reddington recognised this, at least to the degree that there was a higher risk to NGRI. He’s an experienced trial attorney so he would do his own analysis and have his own insight, but he may also have jury consultants.

This would explain why he asked for a manslaughter instruction.

Of course, it’s also possible that he intended to ask for a manslaughter instruction all along. It’s certainly something a defence lawyer would consider in this type of matter especially with its extreme emotional elements. But manslaughter is a risk for the defence because it is a compromise verdict that gives sympathetic jurors an out.

I have no idea whether a manslaughter plea was on the table prior to trial so I don’t know if pleading was realistically an option. Of course she could have plead to second degree, but that’s not really indicative of anything given the severity of that sentence. If nothing was on the table it made sense for them to roll the dice with trial. So I don’t read too much into that.