Gentle Readers . . . and Maxwell,
I used to ask a question every week on my blog and I've decided to start again, even if it doesn't happen every week.This week I've chosen something sensitive. I trust you all not to engage in fisticuffs.
The question is the following: What do you think about the recent trial––or perhaps I should say mistrial––of Lindsay Clancy?
Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder for killing her three children on January 24, 2023: Five-year-old Cora, Three-year-old Dawson, and Eight-month old Callan. She was also charged with three counts of suffocation or strangulation because of the method of death. These charges were dropped as redundant before the trial began.
The trial began in July, 2026. Clancy's lawyers argued an insanity defense.
When the arguments ended. jurors deliberated and were unable to reach a verdict because of one holdout juror. Eleven jurors voted to acquit Clancy. One refused and was described as acknowledging he held doubt about Clancy's guilt but would not follow the judge's instructions to apply that doubt to his vote.
Now, I want you to vote. Lindsay Clancy: Guilty as charged or not guilty by reason of insanity. What do you know about the case that led you to your decision?
I'm not going to tell you what I think, yet, but I bet you can guess.
Infinities of love,
Janie Junebug
I literally did not follow this case at all so I don't have an opinion. I only heard about it after the verdict and even then I didn't pay attention to it.
ReplyDeletexoxo
Same. There are so many things to follow in the news, one has to pick and choose how much information is too much to handle.
DeleteWhat a difficult and heartbreaking question, Janie, this is one of those cases where it feels like there's no side without sorrow. Personally, I find it hard to form a judgment without knowing all the details of the trial, but the fact that eleven out of twelve jurors voted to acquit does seem to say something about how convincing the insanity argument was. I'm curious to hear your take when you share it.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Diana. There's no side without sorrow. I'm still learning details from the trial, and many of the details are shocking.
DeleteJanie, I didn't really follow the trial as I found the subject so distressing that I couldn't allow my psyche to become involved in it. I am thinking that if 11 out of the 12 jurors were going to vote to acquit, the defense must have had a strong case. The whole thing is just tremendously sad.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is very sad. I wish I had seen the trial because I would like to know more about how the lawyers argued their cases.
DeleteJust to let you know I am caught up on your posts and I was here. Never heard of this lady or her trial so I don't feel I can vote. :)
ReplyDeleteI didn't follow the trial to any great extent, so I don't think I can give an informed opinion. That said, from what I read, Lindsay apparently sufferred from post-partum psychosis, so an insanity plea would be logical. Whether this was proven or not, I have no idea.
ReplyDeleteEleven jurors thought the insanity defense was proven. I want to learn more about how it was proven.
DeleteYou could listen to the trial audio podcasts.
DeleteGreat suggestion. Thanks. I'm also listening to a podcast about postpartum psychosis right now.
Delete11 people were right, one was wrong in my opinion. She clearly had tried to get help for her mental illness and was not given it. A very sad outcome. Gigi
ReplyDeleteYes, she tried very hard to get help, and her mother-in-law tried to get help for her, too. Women are expected to be happy and bonding with their babies after they give birth. I don't think anyone is taking care of the women who deal with postpartum depression.
DeleteThis is such a sad, emotional subject. My heart aches for her, for her husband and extended family. The truth is that ,no matter the outcome of the trial ,she will put herself on trial and be imprisoned in a paralyzed body every day of her life.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine what the future holds for that whole family. In many ways there will never be recovery.
Thanks for the opportunity to state what we feel. Diana
Thanks for being here, Diana. You're right: Lindsay Clancy will be imprisoned for the rest of her life, physically and mentally.
DeleteNot guilty. Is it horrible? Of course. Was she in her right mind when she did it? How could she have been?
ReplyDeleteNo mother in her right mind kills her children. Some women have evil intentions (Diane Downs), but it's not difficult to see that her intentions were completely different from those of someone suffering from postpartum psychosis.
DeleteI just can't weigh in on this one. I can't decide where her head was. I would think living with what she did would be the worst punishment she could get.
ReplyDeleteWhen they talked about the children during the trial, she sobbed. I have no doubt she'll suffer for many hours, days, and years.
DeleteHow very sad.
ReplyDeleteYes, terribly.
DeleteFrom Massachusetts, and I followed the trial. Not guilty by reason of insanity, I think. A severe case of postpartum psychosis, made worse by doctors who prescribed many drugs, with no coordination. The mental health system in this country is a failure.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Clancy expressed her fear she would hurt their children to her husband. That was the moment she needed help immediately -- in person with a psychiatrist who understands postpartum psychosis.
DeleteDefinitely not guilty in my book. I think it's obvious she suffered from severe post-partum psychosis, and I don't see how persuading her husband to leave the house (as I've heard she did) changes that. She was not in her right mind, period.
ReplyDeleteAmong the right-wing criticism I've read about this case, are people saying, "Well, if she were a man, she'd never get off." But men don't get post-partum mental illness!!! Do we really have to point that out?!
Even when you point out that men don't experience the same mental and physical issues that women go through when having babies, some people are not going to get it. They're convinced of their moral superiority and will say stuff like, I took care of my kids and I was tired but I didn't kill them.
DeleteWell, goody for you. That doesn't mean postpartum psychosis doesn't exist.
Exactly.
DeleteI don’t know the details of this trial, so I can’t give an informed opinion on guilt or innocence. What I do see is how deeply sensitive and painful the subject is, and I appreciate the thoughtful way you’ve opened space for discussion. Sometimes just acknowledging the weight of it feels more honest than trying to take a side without knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I know where I stand on the trial but I want to learn more because it's a women's health issue that isn't sufficiently addressed (based on what I've learned so far).
DeleteLike many others have said, I didn't follow the trial because it was so distressing and tragic. However, the huge majority of the jury which heard the testimony and saw the evidence voted for not guilty by reaso of insanity. So, I would go with their decision and not the hold out--who sounded like he had some other issues unrelated to the trial.
ReplyDeleteThe foreperson of the jury said the holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt about Lindsay Clancy's guilt, but he refused to acquit her because he doesn't believe in the insanity defense. That's the way I understood it, but I still want to learn more. He spoke out within the last few days and gave a different reason (I don't know what it is) for his refusal. I wouldn't be surprised if he's worried about being a pariah throughout the United States. He didn't have to identify himself, but his identity would most likely come out one way or another with internet sleuths hunting him down.
Delete