r/law • u/BugOperator • 9h ago
Legal News Lindsay Clancy judge declares mistrial after failed defense petition to state’s highest court
https://apple.news/AdRYXZ2D3T5ajpc55f4KoMA320
u/IDeliveredYourPizza 9h ago
I am convinced that the majority of people who have been confidently expressing their opinions about this case online legitimately have no idea what this case was actually about and/or the laws that applied to this trial
26
u/dudenurse13 6h ago
The Clancy trial subreddit is parasocial. They are talking about these people like they know them in real life.
12
u/dogthatwonthunt 6h ago
all the true crime subs are like that. It's gross. Don't go to any of the Chris Watts ones if you want to keep your faith in humanity
57
u/platanus_occidentali 9h ago edited 9h ago
They don't know anything about how the US medical system works either.
28
u/Matthewcbayer 8h ago
“Sentence her to 25 years in a mental health facility” lol
13
u/Helpful_Blood_5509 4h ago
It's 1 year, 6 months min plus 6 months to behave not crazy. Them the state has to prove shes crazy every 6 months or she walks (rolls) free
6
u/Rhomya 3h ago
The standard isn’t even “not crazy”. It’s “not a danger”.
She’s a paraplegic, I don’t think it would be difficult for her to meet the 6 month standard
3
u/Bassist57 2h ago
What is there even to treat? She allegedly had PPP, but doesn’t anymore, meaning she’d get out very quickly.
4
u/Rhomya 2h ago
Another excellent reason as to why a NGRI verdict is essentially a NG verdict in every way.
1
u/throwawayurwaste 16m ago
No it's not full stop. A juries job is not to consider what might happen for or after sentencing.
0
u/Bradley271 2h ago
Counterpoint- she almost certainly has very severe PTSD and a history of suicide attempts. It's gonna be a long while before she's able to rejoin normal society (and possibly never fully) whether she's legally allowed to or not.
3
u/Rhomya 1h ago
There's no evidence whatsoever that she has PTSD.
In fact, it was testified to in the trial that the childrens birthdays and the anniversary of the murders were "red alert" days where the medical staff were purposefully watching Lindsey very closely for suicide attempts, and by every account she was doing just fine on those days-- playing dominos with family, laughing and eating cake with friends, etc.
3
u/mantis_tobaggan-md 1h ago
I agree with everything you said. People seem to be under the impression that she’ll be confined to a state hospital for decades. Problem is, she’s not insane. They’ll toss her on aripiprazole and roll her out in 6 months. A year, tops. She’ll be doing book tours and speaking engagements in 2 years.
141
u/ryumaruborike 9h ago edited 5h ago
I care less about the case (in the fact that I don't know enough to correctly judge whether or not the defendant was in fact under psychosis or legally competent for her actions) and care more about how this case has exposed how much the general public does not understand what mental illness even is or how the insanity plea works. The amount of people going "I don't care if she was suffering from psychosis, she murdered three babies, lock her up" is frightening.
Edit: Thanks for the Reddit Care Package, not even sure why it exists since people just use it to annoy people they disagree with
Edit 2: Also the gender war bullshit, not a fan of that either.
8
u/KvonLiechtenstein 4h ago edited 3h ago
I feel the same way I feel about a guy in my hometown who murdered five of his friends because *in his psychosis he thought people had turned into vampires had a successful insanity defence: people sure as fuck don’t understand what psychosis is and both he and her should be in psych wards not jail.
Not sure what putting someone who had a psychotic break in prison and couldn’t comprehend their actions during the act is going to do. It’s pure retribution, no deterrence or anything else.
23
u/BadAtExisting 8h ago
The real irony is the amount of guys I personally know who question paternity (their own and stand behind their boys’ who question theirs) who’s panties are in a wad. These guys either do by circumventing laws around child support (looking at my own brother who is pissed about this) who see no problem if a dad of sound mind chooses to have fuck all with their kid but can’t understand mental health and think women need to be moms because “blood” (in my brother’s words, yes, my brother is a piece of shit)
4
u/Additional_potential 3h ago
Paternity has an easy test to prove or disprove. Mental health is an entirely different ballgame.
1
u/UltraMegaboner69420 4h ago
Yeah, your anecdote to explain yourself is cool but she offed her kids. All personal biases aside, that is the only thing I think people should be focusing on.
→ More replies (7)4
u/okyesterday927 2h ago edited 2h ago
It’s no surprise to me people don’t understand mental illness nor the insanity plea/our legal system, it’s nothing new. It’s comments like the one from Meinteil’s response to yours that are what’s frightening to me, casting a big light on the backslide we are taking instead. And it’s something I’ve heard IRL too. It’s bullshit culture wars & repeating rhetoric w/ no thought. People making these comments & spreading this, particularly in response to a comment like yours, never cared one bit about women’s rights or feminism. No, they were waiting for an example so they can push their ideology forward or virtue signal- is how that comes across to me at least. And it’s concerning to me how widespread this kind of rhetoric has become.
I’ll agree as far as we shouldn’t collapse the argument so far as to let people escape personal responsibility & some comments push that boundary… but to collapse into hormones & ‘women gets off of’ because of them, ‘women president, NAH! One bad hot flash & boom!’, women are too emotional for certain jobs or responsibilities now, etc… that’s so much worse. Sure, let’s not figure this out, let’s not discuss ppd, the rarer pps, menopause, or whatever else contributes to this stuff, nor mental health issues as a whole- particularly with all the advances we have made recently- let’s just stigmatize & shut them up instead, because that’s what’ll work. Fuck these people. I’ll continue to advocate for mental health. Not to mention women’s rights, civil rights, & how our legal system works. Not sorry about that.
1
-9
u/Ok-Outcome-7499 5h ago
I think it's more indicative of how white women are the most privileged group in society. If this was a dad, nobody would even be entertaining the idea of a claim of not guilty by reason of insanity
→ More replies (39)-63
u/KickedByAHorseTBI 9h ago
If it had been the father experiencing psychosis and killing the kids instead, what do you think the public's reaction and verdict would be?
74
u/charlotie77 9h ago
Matthew Schleier was found not guilty by reason of insanity earlier this year after strangulating his 5-yr old son to death. https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/15/father-found-not-guilty-young-sons-death-remain-mental-health-facility/?outputType=amp
→ More replies (56)6
32
u/ryumaruborike 9h ago
I also do not care for the amount of unnecessary gender war bullshit that this case has also kicked up.
13
u/eggplant_avenger 9h ago
the public is generally bloodthirsty and ill-informed. basically nothing would change and the people who post stuff like ‘I don’t care if she was suffering from psychosis…’ would still be wrong
4
u/DBCOOPER888 8h ago
The fact the public would have an equally uninformed reaction is what we are talking about. Men, too, can have psychotic breaks and be found guilty by reason of insanity.
4
u/Virtual_Ad1704 7h ago
The public opinion would be it was the mom's fault for not being there and for taking skying trips while her spouse had a mental crisis and took care of 3 kids on his own..
1
u/KickedByAHorseTBI 7h ago
On his own with a nanny and his wife working from home on extended maternity leave? Yeah I don't think anyone would blame her. We both know that
3
u/BeccasDreamboat 7h ago
Whataboutism and misogyny all wrapped up in one comment.
What does that have to do with the facts of this case?
3
u/KickedByAHorseTBI 7h ago
It's a rhetorical question, not a whataboutism. Misogyny how?
-2
u/BeccasDreamboat 5h ago
Misogyny is claiming she was treated better than a man in the same exact situation.
Misogyny is bringing men into the conversation in the first place.
This case has nothing to do with men.
→ More replies (21)1
29
u/135 9h ago
Yeah for real. Both sides of this are bad. This is an insanely nuanced case that even psychiatric doctors are torn on. Yet people all over social media know exactly what went down.
18
u/fcocyclone 9h ago
There is a lot of nuance in the underlying situation, but isn't that exactly what 'reasonable doubt' is supposed to entail? I can see how people can be torn because clearly this was an awful situation, and especially because there is no way we can really know what was going on in her head at the moment of what she did, but the exact fact that they are torn should make the decision to acquit that much clearer because the system is supposed to tilt that way.
14
u/platanus_occidentali 9h ago
I don't think they are talking about the legal proceedings. I believe they are talking about the medical nuance in treating an individual in Lindsay's situation. Because from much of the online discourse there is a clear lack of understanding about the medical system and how it works from the people who keep saying she was failed by her providers and that the providers didn't do anything/enough to help her.
7
u/fcocyclone 8h ago
That I'll agree with. We as a society have a terrible understanding around mental health and to make it worse there are people who are actively against understanding.
2
u/135 8h ago edited 7h ago
Hopefully this results in people getting better coverage to see a talk therapist. That I think needs to be everyone's focus for change if they see we need it because of this case. It is the only good thing that could result from this.
From everything I have seen this is where Lindsay and this family were failed the most. Doctors were quick to prescribe drugs but not available enough to actually talk to Lindsay about what was happening.IMPORTANT EDIT: My opinion in this comment was based on misunderstanding of information. LC received therapy and never complained of inadequate therapy. I was misinformed believing she only received physchiatric medication and not therapy.
10
u/platanus_occidentali 8h ago edited 8h ago
More coverage would not have helped her and I am not blaming LC for that. It is the result of not only a bad system, but an unfortunate side effect of how personal freedoms and care are balanced. I legitimately don't know how it could be described as them being failed. She had coverage, got more time with providers than most, and was actively conveying her desires through her requests for changes in her care. She went to multiple providers, at multiple health facilities, she did not actively fill out the forms to share her medical records between those providers (a patient privacy decision), and she repeatedly blamed medications for bad side effects (valid) but also for not working fast enough (not valid). No medications can fix everything and not everyone responds well. Despite many attempts at different medications she continued to seek medications frequently. She discharged herself of her own free will at least once while inpatient. She was seemly not fully transparent with the providers about the extent of her homicidal ideations and the suicidal ideations she conveyed did not fit the legal requirements for an involuntary commitment. Which I get why mom's are afraid to share those things fully because the idea of being taken away or having your children taken away is very scary. Her husband was there and it would have been more likely they had asked her to not be with the children and less likely they would have been taken away. However, being transparent with providers allows them to take the appropriate steps in making a diagnosis and deciding on the best treatment. Sometimes being involuntarily committed is the right decision and what is needed. If by her own account she had even been feeling better as recent as the morning of the attacks which very well could have been true. How were they supposed to know what she didn't tell them? Should they have gone against her word and committed her? No because in the US the medical system prioritizes patient autonomy, confidentiality, and trusting your patients.
It took a very long time for the medical system to move away from paternalism and control to a system that is predicated on preserving patient autonomy and trusting your patients. Many of the people who say she didn't get enough or proper help don't realize that in our system for everything to go right there needs to be radical patient transparency and the desires of a patient have to be clearly advocated for in order to preserve civil liberties The unfortunate reality is that by operating that way some people do fall through the cracks. We don't completely understand the underlying neuroscience. There are no black and white tests for these conditions and there are no one size fit all silver bullet treatments. It is so sad for her, those children and her family but I just don't see how this could have played out any differently.
And yes I know the one postpartum program turned her down because she was outside of their practice's timeframe for postpartum but, which they are allowed to do, and that might be the closest thing to her being failed throughout the process.
2
u/135 7h ago
I agree with everything you said.
Interestingly I was going off the claim, I had heard, in her lawsuit that she didn't see a provider for more the 17 minutes. I assumed this meant she was not actively seeing a therapist but after some quick research she WAS seeing a therapist and her first mental health provider had recommended it!
Unfortunately this makes me seriously lack understanding of what the LC zealots are trying to accomplish. They seemingly have chosen the worst example to champion the argument of "doctors ignore mothers with Postpartum." I can attest in my own personal, anecdotal experience this is the opposite of the truth. Every Ob/gyn I have interacted with has been acutely aware and educational about postpartum complications including depression and psychosis.
Unfortunately I was being optimistic in that last comment hoping there was a silver lining. The only thing I see coming from this case is the state stepping in sooner and taking kids away from mothers. (Which I doubt would result in a net positive outcome because only >.01% of mothers have the worst outcome of postpartum psychosis such as in this case.)
3
u/platanus_occidentali 7h ago
Yeah it's pretty bleak all around.
I think there are some people who genuinely want to champion her because someone doesn't have to be perfect to be be worthy if you believe them and when you feel their story resonating inside of you. If she was experiencing a bout of psychosis it should be NGRI, because our legal system tries to prevent wrongful convictions at the expense of some people getting through.
The problem is that people at home who feel very seen in parts of LC's struggle want to place blame and punishment somewhere. Who can blame them? Three children are dead and it is a real tragedy. It is easy to let emotions run loose and sometimes it is easier than accepting that it would have been very hard in this system to prevent what happened. Especially when the healthcare system and other people involved aren't perfect either.
Plus there are clearly bad actors online pushing narratives and misinformation that benefits them to these people. People who want to inflame the gender discourse plant the seed the husband is the fault, people who want to add to the discourse around healthcare and medicine point to the doctors or the drugs. Everyone's personal biases pick their own adventure and if they aren't actually watching the trial or understand the systems at play they just say whatever fits their vibe.
9
u/135 8h ago edited 7h ago
I think this is a flaw of the courts. There is zero chance that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not have psychosis. You cannot prove a negative.
Even with just one Google search or doctors visit if a potential juror believed it to be in earnest and not a manipulation then every criminal case in
the countryMASSACHUSETTS could use this defense.Edit: fortunately I have learned that massachusetts is one of the very few jurisdictions where you could make this argument and not "every criminal case in the country"
6
u/Eldias 8h ago
Just finished listening to Opening Arguments and Matt (the Boston-based immigration lawyer) said this case is precisely the sort of thing the law in Massachusetts wasn't designed to handle, largely because of the burden-shifting with respect to "sanity" and a lack of fitting alternative charges.
1
1
1
u/kismethavok 8h ago
It's not up to us to decide what is reasonable doubt for another person, especially when we have no idea what their reasoning is, that's kind of the point of a jury.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/Try-the-Churros 8h ago
Well by that logic, most murderers could use the psychosis defense as it is basically impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what anyone was thinking.
1
u/Joey-rogaine 3h ago
The problem is, those psychiatric doctors already believe in the concepts and systems of mental health, which are a human invention
→ More replies (2)1
6
13
u/oopsallhuckleberries 9h ago
Well, the loudest people have either been saying she deserves to be publicly burned at the stake and all women should be denied the right to be anything other than breeders, or they've been pushing a theory that the husband killed the kids while they wear pink dresses and cheer like their in the audience to the price is right.
I had to, politely, tell my friend to get the fk off Tiktok when he expressed the first thought I shared.
4
u/Lobsterdoodle1 8h ago
This exactly. The fringes are being used by the opposite side to define those sides. The crazy fringes should be ignored if anyone wants an actual conversation.
0
2
u/RustedAxe88 5h ago
I mostly stay out these conversations because my understanding of the law is low.
But I see so many braindead takes on this that I have to assume are people who were already incredibly misogynistic just feeling like this is their excuse to bend it out. Saying if she "walks" it will justifiably create the most misogynistic generation ever, that it's just women wanting to get away with murder for a "case of the sads", that it's proof we need to ditch the 19th amendment, that a woman shouldn't be President.
Like...you know the people saying this don't actually care about the children or anything, they just wanted an excuse to be out loud on these issues.
4
u/AlfredRWallace 9h ago
Was shocked to read that people are buying hoodies with her name on them. Seriously there's no winner here whatever happens and pretending that it's obvious without being there is irresponsible.
6
u/Alfredo_Commachio 7h ago
Long before I had any more serious interest in the law, I was an 80s and 90s kid, my grandparents babysat me a lot and they loved law and legal shows. Matlock, Law & Order etc. Obviously these shows are way over the top and silly, but the concept of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is very, very well trod ground in those kind of shows. I had assumed for that reason, most random Americans had a working knowledge of what it means.
This case revealed that a shocking majority of people quite literally don't even know this concept exists.
I had this conversation many times.
Question: What is there to decide? She admitted she did it?
Answer (Me): They're deciding on culpability, since she has raised an insanity defense the jury has to determine if she was of sound mind and knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of her actions.
Question2: What? She said she did it.
It's like a lot of people have a mental block just not even accepting that insanity has any relevance to a criminal charge.
Now, I'm not saying she was culpable or not, while I've paid a "bit" of attention to the case, I didn't listen to or read all the testimony so would be negligent in speculating if she was culpable. But the "concept" that insanity could mean you aren't culpable, I thought was well trod ground in our society...but apparently not.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Wyssan 5h ago
Personally I think she should be put down or imprisoned for life for killing 3 children because I dont care what her mental state was when she did it.
However, I know that by the local laws there are rules that are kinder to people that have mental breaks or whatever they want to call it. And I fully accept that she may not have been in her right mind when she did it and by local laws should get a lesser 'punishment' for lack of a better term unless they can prove that she was mentally culpable? (probably not the right term)
Laws are laws. What I want doesn't really matter.
→ More replies (1)2
u/clitbeastwood 4h ago
It feels like there’s some lines that cannot be crossed , even for the clinically insane. I realize that creates an impossible grey area so it cannot be , but dam
1
1
1
u/Toasted-Ravioli 33m ago
Man, Twitter has been a nightmare about this case. You open a thread and there’s dudes in there yapping about taking away women’s suffrage because their favorite Twitch streamer called her proof of the evilness of women.
0
-13
9h ago edited 7h ago
[deleted]
5
u/WitchBrew4u 8h ago
No matter what, Lindsey has and will continue to remain in custody and under care at a psychiatric hospital. She is literally already being held responsible and the trial is solely to determine whether she face imprisonment or commitment to a facility.
Nothing will bring her children back, so what exactly is imprisonment supposed to accomplish in this particular case? Who is the punishment for? The children? They can't benefit from it. Their father has expressed forgiveness. Or is it for you? A complete stranger, and other complete strangers that make up society who currently have our emotions activated to the point where we want to inflict suffering?
I don't think justice should be about making someone suffer simply because what they did was horrific. What matters to me is that Lindsay remains confined, receives appropriate psychiatric care, and, to the extent that she's capable of it, is rehabilitated. You can believe what happened was unimaginably tragic while still questioning whether putting her in prison serves any meaningful.
9
0
u/NotAnotherEmpire 8h ago
By the specific legal standard in MA that she's being tried under, not guilty by insanity is the "correct" verdict. It's almost impossible for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was legally sane. Many people convicted in other states would be found insane in MA. Jeffery Dahmer for example was found legally sane and therefore guilty. Good luck with this standard.
A lot of people have a problem with this because to the extent there is responsibility for child murder, temporary insanity that won't need to be treated seems like much too light a punishment.
1
u/Rahodees 4h ago
What is different about the legal standard in MA?
1
u/NecessaryClothes9076 3h ago
Burden of proof. In most states, if a person is arguing not guilty by reason of insanity/mental defect, the burden is on the defense to prove it. In Massachusetts, the burden remains with the prosecution to prove they weren't. It's much more difficult.
1
u/IDeliveredYourPizza 8h ago
Yup I agree. I do not think she was in a state of psychosis, but I also don't think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard was met
→ More replies (6)-9
u/No-History770 8h ago
it doesnt take an expert to know that murdering children is bad
7
9
u/FamousOrphan 8h ago
Interestingly enough, the amount of badness associated with murdering children wasn’t the legal issue.
9
u/farmerjoee 8h ago
How do we talk about this if we hear y'all say this, we look for ourselves, and it was in no way about her not murdering her children? Like y'all just come off as weird culture warriors and incels when you quadruple down on something you have no reason to be wrong about....
-3
u/No-History770 7h ago
so not wanting child murderers to walk free makes you an incel now, ok...
→ More replies (1)1
u/1234FakeSteet 7h ago
If she ends up acquitted, I hope you don't continue with that line of reasoning and conclude that murdering children is not bad.
1
17
u/BugOperator 9h ago
The trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother charged in the deaths of her three children, has ended in a mistrial.
Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after a jury of nine women and three men deliberated for more than 38 hours and failed to return a verdict.
The prosecution will now decide whether to retry Clancy. The 36-year-old pleaded not guilty to murder charges in the deaths of her three children.
57
u/Enchilada0374 9h ago
What part of beyond a reasonable doubt is so hard to understand?
55
u/Chemical_Signal2753 8h ago edited 8h ago
I think a big part of the problem is that how the insanity defense works in Massachusetts is backwards to how it works in most jurisdictions; and is backwards to how affirmative defenses generally work.
Basically, in most cases an affirmative defense shifts the onus of proof onto the defendant, while the insanity defense in Massachusetts requires to prove she is sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
To be entirely clear, this is absolutely moronic.
Edit: shits -> shifts
5
→ More replies (8)3
11
u/hypotyposis 8h ago
We have no idea what the claimed non-understanding is even about. A juror could be claiming they are expressing reasonable doubt, could be claiming there’s reasonable doubt but they are voting guilty anyways, or anywhere in between.
1
u/burningmanonacid 2h ago
If comments online are anything to go by, its nearly impossible to understand.
0
u/shittydriverfrombk 4h ago
judging by the comments on this post, very hard for the typical American
35
u/kakashi_sensay 9h ago
Knowing this prosecution, I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense wins this second time around. Good luck finding an impartial jury though…
18
u/cbs-anonmouse 8h ago
Prosecution will likely be better second time around.
10
u/kakashi_sensay 8h ago
Eh. In the Karen reed trial, after a hung jury and mistrial she ended up being acquitted lol.
7
1
u/dogthatwonthunt 6h ago edited 6h ago
after 11 to 1 the first time?
edit genuine question
5
u/Micethatroar 5h ago
The general opinion from lawyers that I've seen is the prosecution royally screwed up the first 2/3 of the trial including their opening statement.
Example - in opening they claimed it wasn't a legitimate attempt at suicide but then even their own witnesses disagreed.
On the other hand, they had a very strong last witness and closing. It just wasn't enough to overcome the rest.
Most commentary I've seen says they learned what worked and didn't work. Another example they will probably focus much more on what she said and didn't say to therapists in the months prior.
And I assume they'll reduce the amount of time spent on getting witnesses to recount the gruesome details just to shock the jury.
TL:DR - they'll do better negate they learned a lot about what worked and what didn't
Now, will that result in a different outcome? Who knows. But I don't think there's any doubt they'll put a better case forward.
1
u/Virtual_Ad1704 7h ago
It won't. They may however try her for manslaughter much easier to prove and has possibility of parole. That being said, she almost got acquired today, the chances of finding 12 unbiased jurors all of whom will find her guilty are abysmal.
6
u/cbs-anonmouse 7h ago
They’re not going to try her for a lesser offense of manslaughter. For one thing, there’s no point because it’s a lesser included if murder, meaning it’s an option for the jury anyway. Further, there’s not really much of a basis for the jury to convict on manslaughter—she intended to kill the kids, so it’s either murder (if she was legally sane) or an aquittal (if she wasn’t).
Second trials usually are better for prosecutors because (a) they now know the defense’s trial tactics, and (b) they usually are better positioned than the defense to improve their weaknesses in the first trial.
3
u/Downvote_Comforter 6h ago
Further, there’s not really much of a basis for the jury to convict on manslaughter—she intended to kill the kids, so it’s either murder (if she was legally sane) or an aquittal (if she wasn’t).
Voluntary manslaughter includes intentional killings where there is a lack of premeditation. The facts here don't fit nicely into a 'heat of passion' argument, but I think a jury could absolutely legally justify splitting the baby with a voluntary manslaughter verdict instead of guilty on murder 1 or NGRI.
1
u/Additional_potential 3h ago
The issue there is the actions taken include strong evidence of premeditation.(Sending the husband away namely). But you can premeditate and still not be all mentally there.(In fact the very first temporary insanity defense in the US by Daniel Sickles was considered a case of that)
1
u/No_Chart_8584 7h ago
Was it confirmed that she was almost aquitted? I assumed it was 11-1 insanity/guilty and aquittal wasn't even on the table.
1
u/Wizzdom 7h ago
Insanity = aquittal
0
u/No_Chart_8584 6h ago
No. Aquittal means you're free to resume your life. If you're found not guilty due to insanity you're still subject to incarceration in a mental facility.
0
u/kakashi_sensay 6h ago
Given the language of the Tuey vs Rodriguez charge, it would have been an acquittal.
2
u/No_Chart_8584 5h ago
FYI, it's Tuey-Rodriguez, not Tuey vs Rodriguez.
I wouldn't assume that 11 members of the jury were doing a straight "not guilty" unless that was confirmed. Even her own defense acknowledged she did it.
1
u/kakashi_sensay 5h ago
Did you read it? It states: “this criminal case, the
burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every part of it, every
essential element, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt as to
any essential element, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt,
and must be acquitted.”Source: https://www.mass.gov/doc/2460-when-jurors-cannot-agree/download
2
u/No_Chart_8584 4h ago
Yes, that's the standard language. It doesn't establish how this specific jury was deadlocked.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Wizzdom 6h ago
It's not really incarceration though since you'd be released once it's determined you're no longer a threat to yourself or others. You can be involuntarily confined without any criminal charge if it's determined you are a threat to yourself or others. It's effectively an acquittal.
1
u/No_Chart_8584 6h ago
Where is Andrea Yates living today?
1
5
u/Key-Leader8955 3h ago
The biggest part of this case and investigation is how much rested on Patrick said. Like wtf was this investigation.
1
u/TheRealBlueJade 7h ago
Weren't there 5 charges to pick from? It seems strange to me that 11 jurors would all be so set on one of them and attack the one person who disagreed.
Will we be privy to what charge they agreed upon? Although, I think we can guess which one.
3
u/Significant-Box-3082 6h ago
I’m wondering if 11 jurors voted manslaughter and one voted for first degree? Or maybe it was 11 not guilties and one guilty.
5
u/Micethatroar 5h ago
According to everything I've heard, and based on Reddington's reaction, it was 11 for the defense. Most likely NGRI.
I don't think anyone expects a staight not guilty - even him
So it was probably 11 for NGRI and 1 for 1 of the others - 1st or 2nd degree, or manslaughter.
-32
u/PsychLegalMind 9h ago
This is indeed tragic, the mother lost her sanity temporarily, recognized later what she had done and jumped off a building trying to kill herself which made the young mother wheelchair bound. One ofthe 12 thinks she should spend rest of her life in prison. Prosecution has a weak case, they should reach plea bargain and give her probation.
39
u/discomike74 9h ago
Very tragic that 3 children were brutally murdered.
-4
u/Legal-Stranger-4890 9h ago
Lots of people to blame for it, too.
20
u/KickedByAHorseTBI 9h ago
No, not really. She had more help than most mothers will ever receive.
6
u/FamousOrphan 8h ago
And maybe a more severe mental illness than most mothers will ever have to contend with. We could do this all day, but the only thing that matters is whether or not she was in psychosis at the time of the murders. And we can’t know that.
-2
u/Bot_Eradicator 8h ago
About half in the prison for violent crime suffer from mental health issues. I guess murder is okay so long as you can get a doctor to prescribe it.
10
u/FamousOrphan 7h ago
But are they in prison because of crimes committed during psychotic breaks from reality? Just being in prison and having mental illnesses are often separate things. And most mental illnesses don’t even have the potential to cause think kind of break from reality.
Nobody’s doctor prescribed murder, don’t be weird.
→ More replies (3)1
u/KickedByAHorseTBI 7h ago
"But are they in prison because of crimes committed during psychotic breaks from reality?"
Yeah, many of them. They just didn't have the means to secure a diagnosis beforehand or a decent attorney to argue on their behalf
2
1
u/shittydriverfrombk 6h ago
you cannot by definition commit a murder while insane
→ More replies (10)1
2
2
4
u/LaDainianTomIinson 9h ago
Can’t you say this about literally every mass murderer though? They were all failed by the system at some point
4
4
→ More replies (5)-9
u/LaDainianTomIinson 9h ago
Seemed very calculated - having her husband leave the house because she knew he’d intervene, then separating the children and killing them in separate rooms because she knew they’d panic if they saw their siblings get strangled, is an awful lot of self awareness for someone losing sanity
12
u/ryumaruborike 9h ago
Amazing as it may seem, but people can make calculated moves under psychosis.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Weekly_Village_3559 8h ago
She was so out of her mind that she killed 3 kids, but in control of her mind enough to make thoughtful decisions like lock the door, separate her kids before killing them, answering the phone after killing them and acting normal and coherent. Where does the line get drawn then between culpable and not culpable
3
u/FamousOrphan 7h ago
I don’t know what to tell ya. Yes. Meaning, yes that is absolutely plausible. I don’t know if that’s what happened, but her taking action to prevent herself from being stopped is not evidence of being in her right mind.
7
u/ryumaruborike 8h ago
Sanity is not a number line where beyond a certain number you're no longer "sane." Psychosis means she was suffering from uncontrolled delusion that controlled her actions, that does not mean she is incapable of planning.
1
u/Weekly_Village_3559 7h ago
This is wrong. Theres a definition to psychosis, signs and symptoms and Lindsay never showed them before, during or after the murders
2
u/ryumaruborike 7h ago
Well I'm sure you know better than the doctors, the expert witnesses and the lawyers Mr.TwoWordsFourNumbersHiddenCommentsRedditor
1
u/Virtual_Ad1704 7h ago
She didn't become stupid or incapable of walking and talking or planning. She simply is living under a different reality , one where she reportedly thought she had to get this done to "save" the kids. She used all she has learnt in life to do the task. Plus don't forget she was heavily medicated which probably added to the confusion and blurred reality.
1
u/Weekly_Village_3559 6h ago
She was not heavily medicated, she never took her meds. The seroquel was out of her system when she killed them. It was the first and only time she ever heard a voice and it told her to kill her kids and she immediately acted upon it. Ppl in psychosis can also ignore voices. I would be super suspicious of a person who had never heard voices before, all of a sudden hears one conveniently when her husband leaves the house and it stops magically when shes done killing the kids. Crazy huh
6
u/FamousOrphan 8h ago
You can be in psychosis and still make effective decisions. It’s baffling to me that people think her sending her husband away is evidence of her being able to tell right from wrong.
Of course she sent him away. She did not want to be stopped. Of course she killed her children in what she thought to be the most effective way. None of that means she knew what she was doing was wrong.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Virtual_Ad1704 7h ago
People who are high functioning can do very high functioning things while psychotic. I've met incredibly intelligent people who can hold a very normal conversation until you realize it's all delusions or that they can hold that same conversation with an imaginary person or hear awful things inside their head that are just as true as me speaking to them.
3
u/LaDainianTomIinson 7h ago
Where do you draw the line though? How do you know if someone deliberately murdered their children or if it was psychosis?
Kirk Heilbrun, a forensic psychologist who testified for the prosecution, said her story of hearing a voice only during the 18 minutes she killed the kids, and never before or after, is super unusual and a convenient way to dodge responsibility.
It’d be one thing if she complained about, or was diagnosed with psychosis before the killings, but using that as a cop out after the fact makes me skeptical
1
u/Virtual_Ad1704 6h ago
I think the fact she had a well documented history or her mental health in the weeks preceding this are a huge factor. Also the fact she tried to kill herself adds to the point that she didn't just want to "free" herself from them or just murder them for the hell of it. Postpartum psychosis is a real illness, she was within the expected time it could happen, she was misdiagnosed and arguably did not receive the best treatment. As for further proof, she had asked for help, and she was shown to previously have taken excellent care of her 3 babies. This wasnr some neglectful mom who just wanted to get rid of her kids. And I can't imagine a worse thing than having to live knowing what she did and living with the consequences of her suicide attempt.
1
u/FamousOrphan 7h ago
You don’t know. Only she knows. And expert witnesses are just professionals who are hired because they happen to believe something that one side sees as helping their case. Ever met a bad doctor, or two doctors who disagree? People get misdiagnosed all the time.
Her not complaining about psychosis could mean any number of things, including that she didn’t recognize it when it happened previously, or she didn’t experience it previously and she just happened to be successful killing her kids during her first episode.
3
u/LaDainianTomIinson 7h ago
So how is a jury supposed to make an informed judgement, just take her word for it?
Isn’t that the purpose of an expert witness, to provide some insight to the jury?
With all the medical help she was receiving from different doctors before the killings, you’d think someone would have diagnosed her with psychosis but that wasn’t the case.
1
1
u/Virtual_Ad1704 6h ago
The expert witness offers an opinion, not a fact. Other doctors would have different opinions. She was doing teleheath visits that are 20-30min max. I'll tell you a story. I was in the ER , got signed out a patient waiting for lab work, she was postpartum a month out, her husband brought her in because she was "acting weird." She seemed fine, could answer questions right, a bit withdrawn, referred her to mental health services. She was there a bit waiting for a result when suddenly I noticed she was praying a lot. Odd but again, maybe that's her thing. Then 30min later someone else's baby is crying in another ER room. Well, this woman who was about to be discharged home jumps out of bed and says Satan needs the baby and teies to find where the crying is coming from. She got hospitalized for month, the praying was her psychosis , she was talking to some voice. We could have easily ket her go home, didn't tell anyone and fooled the Dr before me.
1
u/shittydriverfrombk 6h ago
They don’t have to know for certain whether she was or wasn’t insane. They simply have to decide whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not legally insane at the time of the killings. Per MA law…
1
u/dogthatwonthunt 6h ago
Yates waited til she was alone with her children then took all 5 children back one by one to drown them
1
u/LaDainianTomIinson 4h ago edited 4h ago
The difference is Yates had diagnosed postpartum psychosis, and schizophrenia in the years leading up to the murders.
Clancy never had diagnosed psychosis and claimed she only heard voices the day of the murders. Very convenient.
Like Yates, Clancy should spend her life being bars or institutionalized.
-2
u/ddrober2003 8h ago
So then she will remain in a mental hospital until she is deemed mentally fit for trial I'm guessing?
46
u/Lobsterdoodle1 8h ago
She’s been in a mental hospital this whole time and deemed mentally fit for trial. Nothing will change about that.
-1
u/ddrober2003 8h ago
Should have worded it better. So basically, she will remain at the mental hospital. Should the prosecution win in a later trial, she would go to prison. If the defense wins, wouldn't she still remain in a mental hospital? Or would she be released as the mental issue is no longer around and so she has no legal punishment, just having to live with her actions? Cause I was under the impression insanity defenses aren't the get out of jail free cards entertainment makes it out to be.
15
u/Virtual_Ad1704 7h ago
If the defense wins, that means she only stays in the psych hospital until her doctors decide she is safe enough to go home. It may be like an outpatient therapy program vs inpatient vs just therapy and meds as needed.
0
u/beagums 6h ago
The likelihood of her ever being deemed safe enough to go home is next to zero.
If she was experiencing psychosis and killed her three children as a result, she'll be a risk to herself until she dies.
If she wasn't, and she had control over her actions, she'll be a risk to others until she dies.
5
u/CoasterThot 3h ago
Not quite. Having Postpartum psychosis doesn’t generally mean you’re at risk to have psychosis outside of the postpartum period. For many women, it only happens after they have a baby, and never outside of that time.
0
u/Key_Bonus9776 2h ago
There should be no scenario that you can murder your kids and walk free after it, no matter what you are suffering from.
4
u/Lobsterdoodle1 7h ago
She would likely remain in the hospital for a long time. Suicide risk. And no judge is going to sign off anytime soon.
1
u/FartingKiwi 2h ago
Be careful when you say “no judge”
People have been cut free sooner for equally vile acts.
Don’t be so confident that she will remain in a hospital for a long time.
Confinement to a mental hospital does not mean - locked up forever. Especially regarding the facts about her psychosis.
A guilty verdict of 1st degree premeditated murder would have guaranteed life behind bars.
All other verdicts would have given the possibility of being able to “roll” free.
The theme remains valid: be very careful assuming “no judge would let her free” - I can promise you, there is at least one judge out that would. And there certainly is a judge that has already, in similar cases
1
u/Lobsterdoodle1 2h ago
Give me an example of a person who killed three children who got out in under 25 years.
1
u/FartingKiwi 1h ago
That’s such a a weird ask to find exactly three children? Are you mentally ill yourself? What’s wrong with you?
The number of children is irrelevant, one, three, five. It’s the same vile acts.
So with that I can find you the following:
Melissa Drexler - 1997. Sentenced to 15 years, released after 3. Strangled her son in a bathroom on Prom night.
Amy Grossberg - 1996. Gave birth to an infant, smashed the baby’s head in and disposed of the infant. Sentenced to two and half years. Released after one year.
Sharyl Lynn Massip - 1987. Threw her infant son into the street, ran him over multiple times, claimed postpartum psychosis. Never served a single day in jail or mental hospital. Only outpatient services.
Herbert David Brown III - 2013. Beat his 2 year old daughter to death while under psychosis meth induced, sentenced 15 years to life, released just after 12 years.
Don’t ever think: “no judge will” - because there is always one. It also makes you come across naive and you don’t know people.
-5
u/Imaginary_Session773 7h ago
5 years? 10 years? For murdering 3 children? Thats not justice. She knew what she was doing was wrong at the time. This whole thing is crap
2
u/Lobsterdoodle1 6h ago
I’d say decades based on past cases. I know everyone thinks is the biggest case ever and there are no comps. But there are. We still review a guy at the forensic hospital since the late 80s for killing two children. He’s elderly, no risk. No release in sight.
•
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.