The defendant does not have to prove insanity in Massachusetts; the prosecution must prove that the defendant was sane and criminally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, once the defense has raised a legitimate question about the defendant’s mental state.

“Watts, could have claimed insanity defense as well!”

Maybe but he pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty. I think he knew he was toast.

For me, this entire nightmare boils down to those children - who was most negligent in protecting them? Their father? All those doctors? Her mother who heard her say she was thinking about harming her children? Lindsay herself? She was definitely negligent but was she MOST negligent? She was psychotic, wasn’t she? What does that even mean? I don’t know because I’ve never been exposed to this kind of nightmare. I do accept that it’s real. Look at Nick Reiner who killed his parents - wasn’t he psychotic and wasn’t he treated with many and multiple drugs?

I think most people just want to understand how this kind of thing can happen and with such a horrible loss of life we naturally want to place blame somewhere. Reading all of the opinions here makes me sure that there is no way to get a fair judgement from a jury of one’s peers because there just aren’t any peers for this kind of thing. Maybe this should have been an all female jury and only women who have been through multiple pregnancies. Would that make a difference? I don’t know but that wouldn’t be the random cross section jury selection requires.

Oh, Elmer, of all the traits you demonstrate here, reading comprehension isn't one of them, despite the exaggerated view you have of yourself.

KWPNW, if you consider the victims here--those 3 children--the mother, of course, holds responsibility, and should be held accountable. But why aren't the father, the grandparents, and the healthcare providers being questioned? Had the parent of my children expressed what Lindsay Clancy had to her husband, I'd taken steps to ensure he didn't have access to my children. Why isn't the father of these children held for child endangerment? He knew his kids were in danger. He could have saved those children.

If a parent had exhibited the type of behavior to a healthcare professional, they should have taken steps to protect the children. Simple mandatory reporting laws should be applied.

Those children were failed by their mother AND so many other people who are not being held accountable.

I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest Lindsay should get a pass if she did what she's accused of doing.

As to a double standard, when men can get pregnant and give birth and deal with all the hormonal changes, some of them life altering, then we can compare a man in a rage to a woman with postpartum psychosis.

I think that those of us who have had pretty stable mental health all of our lives really cannot understand the depths of despair and what a true psychosis must do to a person. I surely don’t.

I’m not sure that a psychotic state, even over a period of days, is constant. It may ebb and flow, worsen, then get a bit better.

Becoming psychotic doesn’t render people mindless or stupid. As sick and deranged as their thinking has become, they can still plan, appear rational, make phone calls….

Consider the following scenario:

A person has an undiagnosed brain tumor and experiences erratic behavior, distorted thinking. Their deteriorated thinking is not a constant linear worsening. They have good days, bad days; good minutes, bad minutes.

One day, after seeming to be fine, this person attacks and kills someone. The person is arrested and charged, a complete physical and neurological and psych evaluation is performed. The person has headaches and a brain tumor is discovered and is deemed responsible for the person’s erratic behavior, mood swings and violent actions. The type of brain lesion and accompanying behavioral changes has been documented in the medical literature.

The person has successful brain surgery and after a short while is normal, healthy.

Should this person then be charge and convicted or murder (there were witnesses) and sentenced to prison?

how about a person has a microchip implanted in the brain by a mad scientist that can control the individual. The individual does horrible things commanded by the scientist. He's caught, the implant is removed and He/she is normal again. Should He/she be charged for the horrible things done? Yes, buy law, so the Brain tumor person would be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Just like a person influenced by prescribed drugs that cause involuntary drug Psychosis and kills would be charged with involuntary manslaughter, just like the option jurors in the Clancy case had to pick from if they thought the drug caused the psychosis and the killings.

“I think that those of us who have had pretty stable mental health all of our lives really cannot understand the depths of despair and what a true psychosis must do to a person. I surely don’t.”

Well said!!!

Would we be a more enlightened society if it was decided that ALL motivations for committing horrific homicides were due to physical/psychological/hormonal maladies? Including crazy behavior from drug abuse/alcohol? Would we still recognize pure evil at all? Under such a philosophy, would our prison populations diminish? Would the insane asylums of the past need to be revisited? Would it then be possible for sexual assault be understood as steming from an uncontrolable testosterone storm? Or theft be excused as just a result of economic stresses? Or a less than stellar upbringing as a child? Im aware that prisons and jails are now called correctional facilities for good reason.

I certainly have no answers, but it's interesting stuff to think about.

I realize these questions are far from new (ancient, come to think of it) but they often tend to surface after something mind bogglingly awful happens such as now.

Why is anyone assuming maldies of any sort aren't evil created, evil driven??? Evil doesn't have to have red horns and a pointed tail. It's the master of disguise. It can control our hormones, our psycological health etc etc etc. What does an 'elightened society' do pray tell with those that are bent on hurting others???? FYI: Evil can disguise itself in Toxic Empathy, in tough love vs gentle parenting, in all sorts of ideas that sound good but in reality ruin society. If you 'help' a butterfly out of it's cocoon you will end up with a butterfly who cant fly!! Not all HELP is helpful!! Here's the bottom line no matter what: It does not matter. Harm to self or others means YOU GET LOCKED UP to keep the rest of us safe!! All the time everytime!!!! The 10 commandments and the laws that all deveopled out of them were not created to inhibit. They are guides to how we as people can live in harmony. When you let a rabid dog sleep in your home, you don't wake up!!!! If you want to bring back mental institutions to council all these poor creatures of situations that caused their ills FINE but lock the doors and keep the rest of us safe!!!

hobbitmom - IMO I don’t think we would be more enlightened as a society if we treated all homicides as “physical/psychological/hormonal maladies”. In our justice system we do treat personal responsibility for aberrant behavior caused by an ”unsound” mind differently than we do when that behavior seems to have been caused from rage, malicious intent, ’evil’, etc. The challenge seems to be proving the condition of being of unsound mind.

outpaientzero - IMO in your mad scenario it’s the mad scientist that would be charged for the horrible things his innocent subject did at his command. Said scientist would likely also be charged for harm to his innocent subject who would be one of the victims of that mad scenario.

petalique - seems like the situation you describe would be another dilemma like the current one we’re all pondering.

If she was a good, loving, decent person, mom, wife etc. and committed these horrific acts while in a state of psychosis. Her forever punishment, is living with herself. I couldn't imagine anything more tortuous or haunting than continuing to be alive.

Regardless if she is forever locked away, set free, her torture will never end,

I am sure, many folks, even on this forum may have done something. through their fault or not, that lead to regret.

In my case, i was watching my 7 yr old granddaughter playing on a playground slide. In a split second, she fell off and broke her arm. Of course, she is fine and no long term damage done.

However, no amount of reassuring, from her parents allayed the guilt, the endless rumination of what i could have done differently etc. It was torture!

"Evil doesn't have to have red horns and a pointed tail". I agree. It can have a bloated body topped with a orange face and a strange bird's nest on its head.

Also wearing an expensive suit...?

^^^^ His suits are cheap and ill fitting, along with a bad haircut.

I was thinking of more than a single person...

Well say goodby to a thread with a lot of thoughtful comments. It will probably bite the dust now. Killed with political feelies.

^^^ You can always flag my comment 🙄

Doesn't matter to me 😆

Well Wildchild…TDS really does look a lot like a psychotic condition-not that far from the hallucinations Clancy claims to have had. Their comments might be pretty apropos here. The man literally LIVES in their head nonstop!

As we see right here-as usual! It always turns to him!

To keep the records straight, lilly opened the flood gate to counter reactions......as usual.

and now another one...

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/mom-told-police-son-was-devil-amid-tragic-discovery-in-frankfort-home-court-docs-reveal/3985269/

she's claiming she had a psychotic break.

"The man literally LIVES in their head nonstop!"

There's some truth to this but I think the same is true of supporters. Many seem to have lost the ability to think independently. And who also seem unable to recognize the daily stream of obviously made-up falsehoods and lies to be what they are.

OJ, he literally lives ON your head. It’a a cult.

Cognitive surrender.

A reader’s comment on a WAPO article is informative:

~~~~~

(Edited)

I think it was a lapsed in judgment by the jury foreman to state which side was winning the vote when they sent the note to the judge. And it was an even more serious lapse in judgment by the judge to not redact that part of the note. Announcing who seems to be winning the vote before a verdict is returned is highly irregular. And it forced the defense lawyer to take extraordinary action to try to stop a mistrial and slander a juror when under normal circumstances, the defense lawyer would just follow normal protocol.

So whatever happens next, the court needs to put out some rules on how to handle situations where the jury forperson announces the vote in a note to the judge.

~~~~~

this ^!!! jury deliberations by definition should be sacrosanct. i was blown away when this fact was divulged.

Nina, I only caught an end of a conversation about this, but it seemed like some legal expert was saying that it was highly irregular and wrong to violate that secrecy.

Apparently the jury foreperson had to communicate the problem to the judge, but s/he should not have divulged the way the jury was voting.

Is that it?

@petalique that's exactly it. there should have been no other details in the foreperson's note other than *we can't all agree what reasonable doubt is*. that should have prompted the judge to call them all back in and his job was simply to read the statute to them, word for word, and let them figure out what to do with the information given to them.

just because ONE person couldn't grasp the concept, that is no reason for ANYONE outside the jury room should be privy to HOW the jurors voted.

it'll be very interesting to see how "double jeopardy" fits into this scenario. the defense attorney is sharp, he's very knowledgeable (i dare say, more than the judge!) and it won't surprise me if a legal loophole is discovered that would necessitate the dropping of some or all charges against her.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-is-a-mistrial-and-what-does-it-mean-for-lindsay-clancy-heres-what-to-know/3984940/

excerpt from article...

Reddington then requested that the jurors be polled “as to whether or not there has been a decision reached on murder one, murder two, manslaughter or anything like that.” If they did reach such a decision, prosecuting her again on those charges would be double jeopardy, he said.

" Elmer, you answered a post about obsession with more obsession. That’s the whole point. "

It was an observation.

I have no obsessions as you suggest, I'm a non-combattant, I follow neither extreme. I see and hear gunfire but I pay it no mind other than to point out hypocrisy and extremism here and there. Both sides are equally guilty of that, which is why the deadlock and frustration continue. The extreme turn of government is distasteful to me but only because of the death of truth and prominence of personal corruption and enrichment. I mostly ignore the day to day nonsense.

The job of the defense attorney is only to cast doubt on the guilt of their client and not to find another possible culprit (tho that helps cast doubt). If I am ever accused of a crime I want this guy to represent me....there are so many clips of testimony where he absolutely scorched the prosecution witnesses. The investigation and expert witnesses are completely inept. I also read that the lead prosecutor bought the house where the children were killed, apparently below market value from Patrick and refused to allow the jury to visit the site. I also read that somehow Patrick negotiated his willingness to testify if his phone was excluded from evidence. Something is fishy about this whole thing....sorry I don't know where to find this clip but on FB. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AcBBNHB7g/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Oh yeah...no way would I want to be a member of the "crazy eyes" liberal women cult. No worries there!

There are so many clips of testimony where he absolutely scorched the prosecution witnesses. The investigation and expert witnesses are completely inept.

he caught so many of the expert witnesses off guard with his questions and made at least 2 of them look like absolute morons (as in the clip). the whole investigation seemed to be lacking common sense procedures.

my theory is that the prosecution did everything they could to cause a mistrial so they could get another bite of the apple because they saw the writing on the wall. that became obvious to me when one of the prosecutors and one of the state's expert witnesses made reference to lindsay's catholic upbringing and mentioned "mortal sin". this, after the judge had sustained the defense attorney's objection at the first instance. had the state made sure their experts were made aware that even the smallest reference to religion would be inappropriate, they wouldn't have looked as foolish as they did.

" The investigation and expert witnesses are completely inept. I also read that the lead prosecutor.... "

County and municipal level prosecution jobs for new law school grads are sometimes viewed as akin to residency training for new docs, the recent med school graduates. People can stay with such municipal jobs for a variety of personal lifestyle reasons or, for some, because they find it to be a calling. Those with more ability and ambition often want to move up the food chain to more prestigious prosecution posts at higher levels (state or federal ) or go into private practice to become defense lawyers.

When prosecutors of a small political area (the county has about 500K inhabitants) face a 75 year old master with a long career as a successfull criminal defense lawyer (viewed as one of the best in his region), it's not a level playing field or a fair fight. Not a surprising outcome, lawyers like him do, to some extent, rely on that unlevel playing field as a factor for courtroom successes.

Another public case where much the same thing was on display to be seen - OJ Simpson's talented team of experienced lawyers facing the much less capable and sometimes inept LA County prosecutors. There too, the defense was able to exploit gaps in the prosecution's case to get a "not guilty" verdict (with a very short period of jury deliberation) in a case where the defendent's guilt was more plausible than his innocence.

I’ve watched some of the testimony. My own opinion is I’d stay far away from the psychiatrist she saw 14 times between Sept. ’22 and January ’24. Good grief!

”When prosecutors of a small political area (the county has about 500K inhabitants) face a 75 year old master…”

After what I’ve watched, a master, for sure.

The guy in that clip was fired from his job the day after his testimony,

“I also read that the lead prosecutor bought the house where the children were killed, apparently below market value from Patrick and refused to allow the jury to visit the site.”

I think an assistant DA bought the home. Sounds like the jury did visit the home. The objection for the visit by the new owner was overruled with certain restrictions put in place.

Okay, the parents and husband heard Lindsay say she wanted to harm the children, and no one did anything like take them back to their homes or commit her to a mental facility?

Lily, I would love to hear an explanation as to WHY!!!

I hope this will help be a wakeup call to others in similar situations to PAY ATTENTION TO RED FLAGS! Not sure of the validity, but I heard today there are some 200 women who suffer yearly from serious postpartum psychosis. They don’t all end up with the same tragic results, but certainly could if the warning signs are ignored. It’s far less common than postpartum depression.

I also heard today the Andrea Yates case was pretty much the opposite of Lindsay Clancy regarding drugs. Apparently, Andrea didn’t take the meds prescribed vs Lindsay who was taking multiples. Andrea’s still in a low security facility some 25 years after drowning her 5 kids.

Not a surprising outcome, lawyers like him do, to some extent, rely on that unlevel playing field as a factor for courtroom successes.

that's a bit of a stretch. none of the prosecutors in this case, including the head prosecutor, were wet behind the ears and still, Kevin Reddington wiped the floor with them.

for anybody who might be interested, he will be interviewed on Good Morning America tomorrow.

A Illinois woman named Corie Walsh was charged with first-degree murder for killing her 2-year-old son and then tried to commit suicide. Prosecutors said she was grossly focused on the Clancy trial, and said she killed her son because she believed he was the devil and anti-Christ.

Her defense attorney stated that Walsh was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time of the killing. Copy cat?

The lawyer's theatrical gestures turned the Clancy trial into mere theatrics for gullible jurors, who have no expertise in psychosis or mental illness with only unsubstantiated opposing data presented in bias emotional showmanship on both sides.

This is where laws need changed, to determine if someone is sane or insane during an the act it should be peer reviewed with a jury of educated and experienced professionals to decide if an insanity defense is justified. If validated as insane the case ends there, if sane then it goes to trial by a jury of her peers with the insanity plea off the table.

Now we have a copy cat killing, and how many more will follow after this made for primetime show moves into season two? When people say a lawyer " wiped the floor with them" it sounds like sporting event, so everything is wrong here.

Its folly to back seat driver lawyers. To assume what you think you see on camera is all there is too see and know is kidding yourself. Lawyers have strategy and play the long game to their clients best interest. When the case is "he said she said" as sooo much of this one is where the 'mental disorder' case is concerned thinking bystanders comprehend or can judge what's happening is so far off the rails. Remember the 'WHOLE TRUTH" is not reality in a court of law. It is a travesty of JUSTICE that the murdered children's rights are not focused on more than the nut job on trial.

When people say a lawyer " wiped the floor with them" it sounds like sporting event, so everything is wrong here.

the prosecutors were simply in over their heads. the defense attorney was/is 10 times these lawyers will ever be.

i sat through countless trials when i worked for a criminal defense attorney. it isn't all that difficult to see when an attorney (in this case, two attorneys) is floundering.

to determine if someone is sane or insane during an the act it should be peer reviewed with a jury of educated and experienced professionals to decide if an insanity defense is justified.

the problem with that is that every one of them will have a different opinion, not to mention the log jam it would create in the court system.

I just wish someone could explain why she was allowed to be alone with the children after expressing fear of harming them. Makes no sense.

This has to be very difficult for any jury. The judge repeatedly reminded them not to let emotions factor in. That had to be extemely challenging with photos of the deceased children, descriptions of their injuries, the mother sobbing, etc. I was surprised when the prosecutor pulled the children’s pajamas out of bags to show the jury. The photos of them wearing them weren’t enough? IDK, was that an attempt to target emotions?

Trials are decided by arguments. The degree to which arguments are or aren't substantiated by evidence and by testimony of individuals will always vary. The believability of testimony, even that presented by "experts", will always vary.

The decision is based upon which side's arguments are seen to be more credible or lead to the most doubt. "Truth" isn't always a factor. "Truth" can't always be found and agreed upon because personal and professional assessments and recollections of the same set of inputs won't always be in agreement.

Expert witnesses are paid to assess certain factors and come to an informed conclusion. Their background serves as credentials for having adequate training to make the assessment. Nothing guarantees or justifies the end conclusion to be correct. Two experts in the same case, one hired by each side, often disagree. There's no right or wrong, it's the credibility of their testimony and the arguments advanced from them that matters. A more likely assessment presented with the wrong arguments is no more likely to be successful than a less likely assessment presented with skilfully crafted arguments.

Just finished reading this:

Lindsay Clancy juror speaks after mistrial: "There was so much doubt"

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/lindsay-clancy-juror-interview/

"...A woman who was juror No. 5 spoke to WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex, though she asked to remain anonymous.

"At the end of the day, there was so much doubt," the woman said. "The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."...

...The juror said that from the start of deliberations, the majority of the room was trying to sway the lone holdout.

"The majority of people, it doesn't matter what side they were on, were very firm in their stance and their belief from the beginning," she said. "The stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side. So, I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense. There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions."...

...The juror who spoke to WBZ-TV said at first, she believed Clancy should be found guilty and was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

"And maybe I still believe that in a certain way. I think that this is a woman who was not mentally healthy. She was someone who was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis," the juror said. "I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out."

Juror will "never be the same" after hearing 911 call..."

I just wish someone could explain why she was allowed to be alone with the children after expressing fear of harming them. Makes no sense.

This is my ultimate question, too. I am not defending her. But if a parent (the father) is literally told that their children are not safe, that parent should be taking every step possible to keep their children safe. It's crazy to me that he isn't being held accountable at all as a parent to those kids.

He's now threatening defamation against conspiracy theorists. THIS is his line in the sand? You can read all about those conspiracy theories and come to your own conclusions. But in the trial, it was demonstrated that he was made aware that his children were not safe in the care of their mother, and he did nothing about it.

Now her lawyer is asking Presidential Pardon! What if he agrees?

he was made aware that his children were not safe in the care of their mother, and he did nothing about it.

it really is mind-boggling how she sought help from so many people yet no one could see how much she needed it, especially the person who lived with her. by all accounts, she voiced these concerns numerous times yet everyone around her turned a blind eye.

as for legal consequences for him, i doubt there are any laws against being ignorant. i watched snippets of his testimony, he seemed oblivious as to how/why this happened.