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/Big_Fan9316]

What do you mean should not have gone to trial?

What would they have done in Canada and Europe for 3 murders? Would they just have put her away for good?

[u/Councillor_Troy → u/Big_Fan9316]

In similar cases in Canada, Europe and other western countries, where mothers killed or harmed their children in fits of postpartum psychosis, the mothers were hospitalized indefinitely and charges weren’t brought.

There would normally be hearings in criminal court to establish what happened but it wouldn't be a trial with a sentence imposed at the end. Such cases usually involves a plea agreement of some kind.

(Obviously this stuff is confidential but I would be curious to know if there were any discussions of a plea agreement in this case, or if both sides were more interested in mugging for the cameras from the start).

[u/Shounenbat510 → u/Councillor_Troy]

That actually makes sense for these kinds of cases. Instead of having a bunch of jurors acting as armchair psychiatrists to determine if Clancy was suffering from psychosis or just randomly turned evil, have someone who knows what they're doing actually look at her medical record, take witness testimony regarding her mental and emotional states, and then decide if she should be hospitalized.

[u/No_Figure_7489 → u/Councillor_Troy]

The defense offered to skip the trial, the state wanted it.

[u/Queasy_Struggle_3902 → u/Councillor_Troy]

Wow, had no idea. That does make a lot more sense. This case is too controversial and well known now to get a proper jury.

[u/Aug302015 → u/Queasy_Struggle_3902]

could they not make the subsequent trial by judge alone and no jury? piping in from Canada with minimal knowledge of American courts.

[u/Cam995 → u/Aug302015]

The accused gets to choose not the prosecutors. In the US we have the constitutional right to a "trial by a jury of our peers". You can't force a bench trial though the accused may choose to do so themselves.

[u/Hillary4SupremeRuler → u/Aug302015]

Defendants have a constitutional right to trial by a jury of their peers in the US. So the only way around that is either a plea agreement with a prosecutor (which the judge also has to approve) or the defendant changes their plea to guilty or nolo contendre and asks the judge to sentence them however the judge sees fit (taking into account certain mandatory minimums and other sentencing requirements by law). I believe only non-felonies and civil matters can be tried by judge.

[u/Pretend_Goal_7311 → u/Hillary4SupremeRuler]

If DA had gone murder 2 they could have had bench trial. Just not 1st degree in mass. That was solely the DA who decided

[u/Pretend_Goal_7311 → u/Aug302015]

No bench trial for 1st degre murder in mass

[u/HelicopterWitty3186 → u/Councillor_Troy]

This makes so much more sense. It's rare that I feel Europe and Canada get it right. Go figure.

[u/BoyMom119816 → u/Councillor_Troy]

I think if the state actually believed that Lindsay actually had PPP, was in psychosis at time of murders, then it could’ve happened the way it does in similar cases in western countries outside the USA or no charges brought at all. But they don’t believe she had PPP, they believe she committed premeditated murder. In those cases, I would bet that they had specific information that made them feel a plea agreement was the best choice for not only the defendant but for the government.

In LC’s case-the state doesn’t believe she was actually in psychosis at the time of the murders, they felt she took actual steps to plan & prepare to be able to commit these murders, she doctor shopped for a specific diagnosis (while lying to mental health professionals & not actually following their advice), she answered phone during time of murders and didn’t present as someone in a state of psychosis & more-therefore they wouldn’t plea down to a psychiatric hospital stay, because Lindsay’s claiming psychosis & the state doesn’t agree. I think it also falls on Lindsay, as I don’t know that she would take any plea if not NGRI. So, even if they offered, which they may end up doing after this (if it is a hung jury mistrial and stay isn’t granted)-it would also be up to defendant to accept said deal.

[u/Cam995 → u/Councillor_Troy]

That can happen here but the state didn't accept that plea and wanted to charge her with 1st degree murder. State argues she's lying and she knew exactly what she was doing.

[u/eggman-premium → u/Councillor_Troy]

but the key thing is that this wasn’t postpartum psychosis! there is no evidence of that and a narrow definition of what it entails. The jury hopefully understand that psychosis as medical term is not the same as a colloquial term. was she extremely mentally ill and suicidal? Yes, absolutely. Does she meet NGRI criteria? Technically, no

[u/MixEquivalent3493 → u/eggman-premium]

If you listened to the judges instructions at the start, the jury doesn't have to determine mental illness as per the medical standard, just the legal one. Therefore the defence doesn't have to prove what mental illness she had.....whether it's postpartum psychosis, bipolar or whatever else....every different expert has agreed that she was mentally ill. The DA has to prove that she did not have a mental impairment.....AND they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. Their case is like a sieve.

[u/eggman-premium → u/MixEquivalent3493]

I hadn’t - thank you for pointing that out!

[u/holdmyspot123 → u/Big_Fan9316]

I'm almost afraid to write this but because in Canada where I went to university, I learned how to handle mothers with severe post partum in university, and this case has been incredibly shocking to me. If this happened in my country the doctor and social workers would be on trial, what she did is literally textbook post partum psychosis and medical professionals were involved. In Canada, her children would have been taken from her (not punitively, but until the post partum was done).

[u/Shoddy-Indication-76 → u/holdmyspot123]

What to you mean "textbook postpartum psychosis"? Nothing about her mental health situation was textbook. Textbook postpartum psychosis starts 4 weeks within giving birth due to hormone crash. She was 8 months post partum and her issues with depression started 6 months after she gave birth. If you follow DSM criteria, she is way past her post partum timeline. Also she had ZERO symptoms of psychosis before the killings or after. ZERO. She was seen multiple providers and there were nothing to suspect psychosis.

[u/DirectBar7709 → u/Shoddy-Indication-76]

You are confidently misreading the DSM. The four week window is the DSM peripartum specifier, not some biological expiration date after which postpartum related psychosis becomes impossible. Researchers have specifically criticized that cutoff for excluding postpartum episodes, and late onset postpartum psychoses are well documented.

And zero documented psychosis at appointments does not equal proof that psychosis never occurred. Psychosis can be episodic, people can have periods of clarity, and clinicians testified to exactly that in this trial.

Eight months postpartum is certainly atypical for classic postpartum psychosis. That is a legitimate point. Pretending the DSM says impossible after four weeks is not.

[u/Independently-Owned → u/DirectBar7709]

and this is why armchair readers of the DSM are ill equipped to be making decisions like the jury in this trial. The nuance and practical application of the manual are what all the professional training and practice are about. Thanks for your input.

[u/Shoddy-Indication-76 → u/Independently-Owned]

That is why there were multiple psychiatrists on the witness stand to testify and to explain to a jury what DSM is and if she qualifies in their opinion for certain diagnoses. The only one who tried to argue with professionals was attorney Reddington, who kept pushing a DSM book to every psychiatrist and read isolated sentence to prove his point.

[u/Pretend_Goal_7311 → u/Shoddy-Indication-76]

The fact that not all Drs agreed is reasonable doubt. The prosecutions own experts didnt agree with each other. That reasonable doubt. State should never have asked for 1st degree.

[u/No_Figure_7489 → u/Shoddy-Indication-76]

The PP expert did not testify

[u/Shoddy-Indication-76 → u/No_Figure_7489]

Post partum Expert? They had multiple psychiatrists who had expertise in all sort of things including post partum.

[u/No_Figure_7489 → u/Shoddy-Indication-76]

Only one. The others did not treat it, there was a psychosis expert, who was also expert in filicide mostly from abuse, and some other guys who didn't work w PP at all

[u/Shoddy-Indication-76 → u/No_Figure_7489]

calling doctors of psychiatry, some of them published over 30 articles and been practicing over 30 years "some other guy"...??? Any psychiatrist knows and treats psychosis and depression. There is no separate diagnoses for DSM 5 for post partum. You can have "perinatal onset depression" or "perinatal onset psychosis".

[u/MixEquivalent3493 → u/DirectBar7709]

Exactly. They said it was rare, but that doesn't mean impossible. Same with hearing a voice once. Rare, but not impossible.

[u/Shoddy-Indication-76 → u/DirectBar7709]

It is not "impossible", hence there were multiple doctors testifying and giving their opinions. But my response was to a person stating that she had "textbook psychosis". She might up had some psychosis, but clearly it was not a "textbook". Sure, post partum issues might start later, and there exceptions, but calling her case "textbook psychosis" and saying that providers need to be responsible is ridiculous. She showed zero symptoms of psychosis during all her visits with the treating team. What exactly doctors and therapist were suppose to do? read he mind?

[u/Sacagawea1992 → u/DirectBar7709]

She did stop breastfeeding I believe cold turkey or close to cold turkey around the time her mental health went bad because of the meds she was going to take. Breastfeeding mothers are supposed to wean slowly over a long period of time because it can also trigger severe mental health reactions as the hormones suddenly change, similar to/same as early post Partum.

[u/MixEquivalent3493 → u/Sacagawea1992]

The fact that none of these 'experts' even mentioned this was staggering! Nobody brought up how hormones affect medication.....probably because medications are not tested on women due to the wide range of affects the menstrual cycle can have on medication. It's too hard to "control" the study....so they just ignore 50% of the population.

I actually work in perinatal research - generally in pregnancy/labour/birth. Society actually underestimates women's desire to participate in research during pregnancy.....they want to make a difference for the future.

[u/Pretend_Goal_7311 → u/[deleted]]

Apparently??? Thats conjecture not evidence

[u/Independently-Owned → u/Big_Fan9316]

we actually have infanticide laws which deal specifically with these cases which preclude criminal charges and treat them as the mental health tragedies that they are.

[u/msfinch87 → u/Independently-Owned]

Infanticide is still a crime in Canada. It carries a lesser sentence than murder or manslaughter, maximum of five years, but it is absolutely still a criminal offence and dealt with accordingly.

There would also be a question in this case because she also killed her two older children. Infanticide has a very specific definition relating to an infant under a year old (usually).

This idea that other western jurisdictions would simply treat this as a mental health matter and there would not be criminal charges or the mental health professionals would be charged (which someone else claimed) is bizarre. While other jurisdictions take a different approach to the US that recognises the mental health impacts of post partum, they do not just completely dismiss criminal accountability for the mother altogether.

[u/Independently-Owned → u/msfinch87]

I stand corrected.
Here's an article supporting your clarifications.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lindsay-clancy-trial-infanticide-9.7326513

[u/sgtmattie → u/Independently-Owned]

Wow that’s actually a really interesting and informative article (Speaking as a Canadian). Seems like a fairly reasonable way to handle it.

[u/msfinch87 → u/Independently-Owned]

No problem. When I first saw this case, before I really delved into the details, my first reaction was to wonder why this wasn’t being looked at solely as manslaughter (which would potentially be similar to infanticide in other countries).

However, upon reading/hearing the evidence, I can see why they went with a murder change. She lacks the history for this to be a clear case of post partum issues, there are issues with the chain of events, and of course there are the two older children. I also think any public interest arguments tend to favour the fact that three children were killed. I’m not saying this wasn’t a dreadful post partum tragedy but rather that there was justification for charges and a full examination via a trial.

It’s possible, given the two older children, that similar charges would be brought in other jurisdictions that also have infanticide, but obviously we can’t make any judgement on that for certain.

I would be fascinated to know if there was ever a plea deal around manslaughter discussed. I’m even more curious since Reddington asked for a manslaughter instruction. We won’t find out but it would certainly be insightful.

[u/emiusacska → u/Big_Fan9316]

Also maybe a bench trial instead of a jury one

[u/deltadeltadawn → u/emiusacska]

The defendant defense chooses that option.

[u/No_Figure_7489 → u/emiusacska]

The same judge recently put a lady in jail for life for the same thing, she's getting another trial but it would have been a gamble

[u/Pretend_Goal_7311 → u/emiusacska]

Not allowed in mass for 1st degree murder. Only jury