Of course it doesn't. What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Do you really think we cannot convict someone of a crime unless they admit they did it?
Modern Relationships and Lindsey Clancy Case. 3 Children Strangled. Overwhelming Support From Females and Male Backlash.
- Thread starter Lightbeamrider
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Please, as a Canadian citizen, don't tell Americans whether or not to serve on a jury until after Canada becomes part of the US.
The prosecutor adjusted their case based on the Defense. But the reality is your comment was patently absurd. Prosecutors do not need an admission of guilt to convict.
The sinking ship is global. What you see with the US is no big deal compared to France and their riots, or Iran, or Mideast, or the plague just released in Russia, etc. If you think the US has a debt issue then you surely think Japan has a debt issue. Sudan, Singapore, Venezuela, and Italy are all about to go bankrupt. If the US goes bankrupt they do too, and if they go bankrupt you can be sure the Maldives, Senegal, Bahrain, and Greece will also. Can NATO still survive after that?
Sorry to say but Canada would almost certainly go bankrupt if the US does as well as Spain, France and UK.
OK, so untwist this for us: "My goodness .. the prosecution's case does not even need the admission of guilt."
@ZNP Thank you for posting the various laws and procedural requirements for MA regarding burden of proof and what specifically the jury had to determine! I was going to post it myself until I was pleasantly surprised you did. 
Someone in this chat said Lindsay "admitted killing her children many times". Would you agree that statement is factually incorrect?
I reviewed every pertinent statement witnesses said. Lindsay did not testify at the trial. She was never asked by any state/police official (police/DA) if she killed her children (which is shocking to me). And so, therefore, there is no audio/video nor written confession of any kind.
Next there is the in-trail hearsay (legal hearsay/hearsay exception). No witness stated that Lindsay told them she killed the children. No witness testified that Lindsay recounted killing nor seeing herself kill her children.
On the contrary, all witnesses did not state Lindsay outlined any visual memories of committing the acts, rather they said that she said she didn't remember and status of her memory of that time is foggy and fuzzy.
Even during Patrick's (husband) 60-Minutes interview, he did not state that Lindsay told him she killed the children, nor did he say she recounted a memory of killing the children. In fact, the interviewer asked him if he asked Lindsey why she killed the children. And this is bizarre to me; he said he (only) asked her if she remembers it, and he said she said the event time was dreamlike, and did not recount murdering the children.
I would most decidedly say a fair and reasonable person would have to say she did not, in fact, admit to killing her children. One can say, "Her husband said she admitted it" (which by-the-way, he did not state) or "things people said she said infers she admitted it in a way"... but IMO just flatly stating "she admitted it many times" with no caveats or explanation seems ethically too loose, intellectually undisciplined and/or openly biased.
Someone in this chat said Lindsay "admitted killing her children many times". Would you agree that statement is factually incorrect?
I reviewed every pertinent statement witnesses said. Lindsay did not testify at the trial. She was never asked by any state/police official (police/DA) if she killed her children (which is shocking to me). And so, therefore, there is no audio/video nor written confession of any kind.
Next there is the in-trail hearsay (legal hearsay/hearsay exception). No witness stated that Lindsay told them she killed the children. No witness testified that Lindsay recounted killing nor seeing herself kill her children.
On the contrary, all witnesses did not state Lindsay outlined any visual memories of committing the acts, rather they said that she said she didn't remember and status of her memory of that time is foggy and fuzzy.
Even during Patrick's (husband) 60-Minutes interview, he did not state that Lindsay told him she killed the children, nor did he say she recounted a memory of killing the children. In fact, the interviewer asked him if he asked Lindsey why she killed the children. And this is bizarre to me; he said he (only) asked her if she remembers it, and he said she said the event time was dreamlike, and did not recount murdering the children.
I would most decidedly say a fair and reasonable person would have to say she did not, in fact, admit to killing her children. One can say, "Her husband said she admitted it" (which by-the-way, he did not state) or "things people said she said infers she admitted it in a way"... but IMO just flatly stating "she admitted it many times" with no caveats or explanation seems ethically too loose, intellectually undisciplined and/or openly biased.
Not sure the source of your 1 and 2 here. I'm presupposing they are your conclusions?
Secondly, matching the three doctors the prosecution had state they believe she did not suffer a psychotic break, the defense had three doctors state they believed she did suffer and psychotic break. (5/6 doctors met with Lindsay after the murders)
Thirdly and oddly, of the three psychology professionals that actually met with Lindsay before the murders ("her doctors"), none of them were asked by either side if they believed Lindsay experienced a psychotic break during the murders.
I think you would also agree a reasonable person would expect her psychiatric professionals would want to distance themselves, and/or say there were no signs whatsoever that Lindsay would do such a thing, as that would imply a malpractice.
For instance, and I think this is highly unlikely, but still not without real-life precedence (Spanish "Guarda Urbana" Murder), but it's necessary to check to see if it's possible the husband may have wanted to new life without having to support, deal with the wife and their 3 young children, has an accomplice drug the wife, kill the children, make texts and calls from Lindsay's cell phone to the husband who then has both an alibi and convicting evidence against the wife, cut her wrists, throat and throw her head first out a 2 story window. If that was the case, they likely expected her to be dead and tell no tales.
"her doctors"... I would very strenuously put that in context: those three doctors interviewed her after the murders. None of them every met her before the murders. I don't think it's proper to call them "her doctors", do you?
Secondly, matching the three doctors the prosecution had state they believe she did not suffer a psychotic break, the defense had three doctors state they believed she did suffer and psychotic break. (5/6 doctors met with Lindsay after the murders)
Thirdly and oddly, of the three psychology professionals that actually met with Lindsay before the murders ("her doctors"), none of them were asked by either side if they believed Lindsay experienced a psychotic break during the murders.
I think you would also agree a reasonable person would expect her psychiatric professionals would want to distance themselves, and/or say there were no signs whatsoever that Lindsay would do such a thing, as that would imply a malpractice.
Yes, I would generally say it does. One of the problems with the judge denying the defense's request for a bifurcated trial is there's likely to be insufficient determinations about the facts of the murder case. By the structure of the case the defense did not present the usual rebuttal of these accusations, statements and conclusions.
For instance, and I think this is highly unlikely, but still not without real-life precedence (Spanish "Guarda Urbana" Murder), but it's necessary to check to see if it's possible the husband may have wanted to new life without having to support, deal with the wife and their 3 young children, has an accomplice drug the wife, kill the children, make texts and calls from Lindsay's cell phone to the husband who then has both an alibi and convicting evidence against the wife, cut her wrists, throat and throw her head first out a 2 story window. If that was the case, they likely expected her to be dead and tell no tales.
I'm a little confused about what you put together there... if what matters is the determination of the 12 jurors, then there was a very clear basis to feel the prosecution did not reached the threshold that that she was criminally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt because 11/12 determined they did not.
I agree with your issues there. Although, just to be fair, Reddington, in court used the pronoun he, and in pursuit of trying to get the judge to replace the juror cited a specific 2021 prosecution and an abuse-prevention order linked to the juror.
No.
Someone in this chat said Lindsay "admitted killing her children many times". Would you agree that statement is factually incorrect?
X - The Everything App
| Lindsay Clancy’s account of the January 24, 2023 killings of her children—Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months)—has come almost entirely through statements she made afterward to her then-husband, hospital staff, and evaluating psychiatrists. She did not testify at her 2026 trial. Her lawyers did not dispute that she strangled the children with exercise bands; they argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis. The trial ended in a mistrial in September 2026. According to those reported statements:
|
The fact that Lindsey killed her three children was never disputed, so whatever point is being made here is moot.
That is common with murderers.
I did not follow this trial, the only thing I have witnessed was the full testimony of Patrick during the trial. So no, I have no reason to say that she confessed to killing the kids.@ZNP Thank you for posting the various laws and procedural requirements for MA regarding burden of proof and what specifically the jury had to determine! I was going to post it myself until I was pleasantly surprised you did.
Someone in this chat said Lindsay "admitted killing her children many times". Would you agree that statement is factually incorrect?
I reviewed every pertinent statement witnesses said. Lindsay did not testify at the trial. She was never asked by any state/police official (police/DA) if she killed her children (which is shocking to me). And so, therefore, there is no audio/video nor written confession of any kind.
Next there is the in-trail hearsay (legal hearsay/hearsay exception). No witness stated that Lindsay told them she killed the children. No witness testified that Lindsay recounted killing nor seeing herself kill her children.
On the contrary, all witnesses did not state Lindsay outlined any visual memories of committing the acts, rather they said that she said she didn't remember and status of her memory of that time is foggy and fuzzy.
Even during Patrick's (husband) 60-Minutes interview, he did not state that Lindsay told him she killed the children, nor did he say she recounted a memory of killing the children. In fact, the interviewer asked him if he asked Lindsey why she killed the children. And this is bizarre to me; he said he (only) asked her if she remembers it, and he said she said the event time was dreamlike, and did not recount murdering the children.
I would most decidedly say a fair and reasonable person would have to say she did not, in fact, admit to killing her children. One can say, "Her husband said she admitted it" (which by-the-way, he did not state) or "things people said she said infers she admitted it in a way"... but IMO just flatly stating "she admitted it many times" with no caveats or explanation seems ethically too loose, intellectually undisciplined and/or openly biased.
That said, her plea was "not guilty by reason of insanity". That seems to me that anyone can reasonably infer that to mean she is conceding that she did it.
My understanding is that when you have three young children at home all murdered one at a time while the mother is at home, that statistically speaking, strongly implicates the mother having killed them. There would have to be evidence of a perpetrator having been in the house to even consider any other possibility. This doesn't rule out someone else having done it, but where is the evidence?
How would a third person take the children down to the basement, one at a time, and kill them while the mother is there?
The other thing I pointed out is you don't need a confession to convict. Basically, had she confessed there very likely would not have a trial. Anyway, the trial was not about whether or not she did it, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (I am paraphrasing) her having done it was not an issue in the trial.
There is a movie "Primal Fear" where an actor named Norton plays a character who blacked out and has no memory of murdering the arch bishop. The lawyer hires a psychiatrist to evaluate his claim that he blacked out and has no memory of the crime. She was convinced, the lawyer was convinced, the prosecuting attorney was convinced, and the judge was convinced that he had indeed blacked out. However, it turns out that his claim of having blacked out was a result of malingering, and Norton was far more convincing than this woman was.
Her doctors had prescribed her medicine for depression. You can't prescribe medicine without first a diagnosis. This was prior to the murders.
Generally speaking, people who have psychotic breaks will have a history and not just the one time event when they murdered three children.
If you decide that we don't need any history of psychotic breaks prior to a murderer murdering people and instead all we need to do is take the word of a murderer, then that would mean anyone who says "I didn't do it" must be found not guilty due to reasonable doubt. The idea that a murderer might also be a liar is obvious.
So for me, if I was a juror, I would have to have "reasonable doubt".
1. Did her husband or family observe her having psychotic breaks prior to this event?
2. Did the three psychiatrists / doctors that prescribed her medicine diagnose her as having psychotic breaks?
3. If there is no evidence prior to this event that this was the case then the other thing that would give me reasonable doubt is if the side effects of the cocktail of the drugs found in her system could cause a psychotic break. This study would have to be done by an independent lab. It would cost serious amount of money, but if you were convinced you were innocent you would pay for this.
Other than those three things, my feeling is that she is lying.
4. However, there is a fourth route you can take if you truly had no recollection of what happened, you want to investigate the effects of that cocktail of drugs in the system, and you don't have the money to pay for the study. Plead not guilty. Be convicted of murder and be sentenced to be executed. There are many people in this country who will provide free legal help and free research to those on death row who might be innocent. It can take as much as 25 years of appeals before the death sentence is carried out. So you have plenty of time to prove your innocence. Obviously if these drugs have this side effect it would help everyone to know this and your proving this would be helpful to everyone. Unfortunately I don't think Mass. has the death penalty, and all that free help is generally reserved for people on death row.
5. Finally, there is a fifth route you can take, described in the movie The Hurricane. Basically you write a biography and publish it. Some kid in high school reads your biography, gets his parents to then pursue the mission of proving you are innocent. They then do the scientific research of the drugs involved and prove that yes, they do indeed cause psychotic breaks when taken in a cocktail.
Our legal system does not mean that if the majority of jurors vote a certain way you are not guilty. This trial required a unanimous decision. So no, 11 out of 12 does not mean she is not guilty. On the contrary that one lone juror sat through the entire trial, he heard all the evidence, and he did not buy it. According to the other jurors originally there were three that did not buy it, but they bullied them, yelled at them, and eventually two caved. But despite all the yelling and bullying the third refused to cave.
I saw these interviews and what I was looking for was the "compelling evidence" that they had seen that caused them to feel the woman was not guilty. No one provided any such evidence. Instead they complained that this juror had expressed doubts, as a result she should be found not guilty due to reasonable doubt. I found that argument absurd. Of course, no one can be 100% certain that this woman didn't have a psychotic break, how could we. But that is not reasonable doubt, if it were every single murderer who claimed to have had a psychotic break would have to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
By himself Reddington did not out the juror, however, he should be rebuked for using the pronoun. This opened the door for the interviewer to ask questions about "him" and that led to his being outed. I would sue the TV shows that ran those interviews and in the civil suit I would point heavily at the lawyer for having set the stage for this.