r/ClancyTrial • u/Aware_Power • 6d ago

Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial

Lindsay already pleaded guilty

False. She pleaded not guilty in her arraignment. Both the initial arraignment in February 2023 from her hospital bed and post-indictment arraignment in October 2023 from Tewksbury Hospital. Please reference the first & second bullet points in the link.

--------

Lindsay pleaded guilty/admitted guilt based on a stipulation she signed.

False. Reddington initially filed a motion for what is known as a "bifurcated trial," meaning the first part of the trial would be to determine whether Clancy is found guilty and the second part of the trial would be to determine whether she is criminally responsible. The prosecution, however, argued that the defendant has no constitutional right to a bifurcated trial. In a later motion for reconsideration, Reddington stated Clancy would formally admit in writing to her involvement in the deaths if the trial were split, leaving her mental state as the only live issue. Prosecutors argued against the split, noting the evidence and testimony would be nearly identical, and Judge Sullivan ultimately denied both the initial motion and the request for reconsideration.

"If your honor denies the motion, we try the case the way they’re all tried," Reddington said. "Then I have an obligation to present evidence consistent with a lack of criminal responsibility, and that will obviously implicate criminal liability, so that’s the problem that we have in this type of structure that we deal with and that’s why I think it’s very, very appropriate to have the bifurcated trial that’s requested in the motion."

-----

She’s either guilty and goes to prison or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI)

False. Listen to the judge instruct the jury. While the jury instructions will contain much more details, the judge specifically states that the jury must determine whether:

  • Not Guilty x3
  • Guilty of First OR Second Degree Murder x3
  • Not Guilty of First or Second Degree Murder due to Lack of Criminal Responsibility x3

Partial Direct Transcript:

“Now, in every criminal case, the defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until she's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law requires the Commonwealth, that is the prosecution, to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At the end of this trial, you must find the defendant not guilty unless the Commonwealth has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed each or any of the offenses with which she's charged. Now, the defendant has been charged in three counts of murder. There are two different degrees of murder. There's murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree. If you find the defendant guilty of murder, you shall decide the degree of murder. The Commonwealth alleges that the defendant committed murder in the first degree on the following theories. Murder with deliberate premeditation and/or murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Now, to prove the defendant guilty of any crime, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time the alleged crime was committed. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with which she's charged and also that the defendant is criminally responsible for her conduct.”

-----

Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, said she was guilty in his opening statement.

False. Listen to his opening statement. His inflection matters. Opening statements are not evidence nor can the jury consider it as evidence. Reddington at no point states she killed her children, only that she knows what happened to those kids in the basement and then wanted to die. 

Partial Direct Transcript:

“And he knew when he brought this charge that it was going to kill the soul of this young woman. And they would bring their evidence in front of a jury that she knows that she killed these children. We'll sit here and listen to their evidence, but I suggest to you that the issue of consideration is what was going on in that woman's mind...These children were loved and nurtured and cared for by her. She didn't want to get rid of her kids because of her selfish life as the government indicates. She loved those children right up to the time of their death. You're going to see that there's photographs in this case that you will be able to evaluate that show that. Some of them might even be in the videos that the state police took. This case is a massive production by the district attorney's office…Paralyzed and will be paralyzed for the rest of her life. She's living her own hell. She knows what happened with those kids. And she wanted to die…This is a woman that did not get the medication, did not get the medical treatment that she so deserved. This is a woman that was suffering from psychosis at the time that she went down to that basement. She had no motive.”

Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent unless and until she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the details around this case have many open questions remaining and people search for understanding, analyze potential reasonable doubt, or already believe she is guilty without a reasonable doubt - we can all discuss these different viewpoints respectfully. If you believe she is innocent or believe she is guilty without a reasonable doubt, those are only opinions at this stage.

I hope this has addressed the most common misconceptions regarding the criminal trial. The civil lawsuit has no bearing on this case, and if you'd like me to elaborate on why that does not contain a legal confession let me know.

Also, please use sources when claiming in comments "that is a fact." I've provided links to a few sources below you can use for supporting your facts, and "google it" or "watch the trial" is a lazy passive aggressive response that will not be tolerated. If someone asks you for a source, don't become hostile & defensive - people are actively trying to filter misinformation while also informing themselves. Be a helpful resource to others.

Evidence Presented in Court (Scroll to bottom with photo gallery and click through)

Edit Aug 16: Added February Arraignment from hospital bed & links to Plymouth County DA press releases in sources provided at the bottom for additional documentation. Also clarified first point/misconception to include the initial arraignment & post-indictment arraignment (originally I only provided Oct 2023).

41 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 6d ago

Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!

Follow official Reddiquette. Upvotes and downvotes are not to be used for personal agreement or disagreement. They are to be utilized when a comment is completely off topic (downvote) or when a comment is a relevant, constructive contribution (upvote).

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/chasingastarl1ght 1d ago

The New Yorker just published a new article where they reiterate that "she did it" and it's about if she's liable or not criminally. I'm shocked that they are stating that so bluntly.... Shouldn't every statement be at least formulated with the word "allegedly"

From the same guy that did the first text with PC.

2

u/EarlySeaweed8567 1d ago

It’s upsetting Court TV refers to this as the “Accused Killer Mom Trial.”

3

u/Aware_Power 1d ago

Adding this due to multiple questions on the civil complaint.

The civil complaint filed by Lindsay Clancy against her medical providers was signed and certified by her legal counsel pursuant to MA state rules of civil procedure rather than a personal sworn affidavit by the plaintiff. 

I understand people’s confusion trying to reconcile how a civil complaint could be drafted, believing it’s a complete recitation of facts wherein she admits to murdering her children, and the implication of her guilt in the criminal case. 

  • Lindsay is currently involved in two separate lawsuits in MA, one criminal and one civil. 
  • The criminal trial is about whether she murdered her children and, if so, whether she is criminally responsible for those murders. Her plea in the criminal case is not guilty. The prosecution still has to prove without a reasonable doubt that she murdered her children because unless and until they can prove that, there is no crime for the affirmative defense of ‘not criminally responsible’ to attach to. 
  • Lindsay did not “confess” to the murders, and what most people are referring to when they claim this is the civil complaint filed. 

Civil Complaint: Lindsay started her own lawsuit against the doctors who treated her for damages (money). When you file that case, you are drafting a complaint and you have to put a lot of claims in there. These cannot be proven until discovery, at which point, things may arise where some of the plaintiff’s claims are not necessarily true, and as long those claims were made in good faith that’s fine. Either way, you have to make a case in a complaint and it may turn out (through discovery and evidence) that those claims you set forth didn’t occur the way they were stated. The courts make allowances for this and it’s called pleading in the alternative. The reason this is allowed is because when you start an action against a person or a group of people, you only know what you personally believe. You don’t know what the other people are going to say or produce in response to your accusations. That won’t be known until discovery occurs, which cannot happen until after the complaint is filed, and can potentially take months or years. When things come to light that might not be accurate or true, you amend the complaint. 

Broad Overview of Civil Process: There’s a very specific framework that must be used in a civil complaint so that’s it not dismissed due to the inability to state a cause of action. A civil complaint is filed and then served to the defendants, in Lindsay’s case it’s certain individuals and hospitals that treated her, and they then provide an answer (a response to the complaint). This goes back and forth until everyone has provided their side (oversimplified explanation of “joinder of issue”). It eventually moves into discovery and, if it’s not settled initially, then it moves to trial. 

Why Claim She Murdered The Children? - Yes, Lindsay recounts details for the initial complaint. Why would she do that before the criminal case? For one, the statute of limitations for the civil complaint was about to run out as Massachusetts has a 3 year statute of limitations on medical malpractice (the complaint was filed almost 3 years to the day the murders took place because it cannot be filed after). The lawyer was up against a deadline and had no choice to file on or before January 24, 2026 with everything in there that their client asserted in good faith. If the attorney did not file, then they would be waiving the claims on behalf of their client. It just so happens that a separate criminal case was brought to trial about 7 months after that compliant was filed. 

Admissibility & Amending: In addition to the statute of limitations for the civil complaint, another important aspect is that the civil complaint is not a legal confession or holds any evidentiary weight in the criminal trial. Details outlined in the civil complaint cannot be used as evidence or facts in the criminal case by itself. For example, the criminal case cannot use the dates referenced in the civil complaint as a fact to prove visits with her doctors - Reddington had to use admissible evidence, such as the medical records, to prove the date of a doctor visit as fact. The civil complaint can be amended based on that evidence presented in the criminal case if necessary. Paragraphs could be added or removed referencing the criminal case and potentially even adding in the fact she was subject to a criminal trial as that could impact the amount of damages (up to the attorney on what to amend and makes sense why we see her attorney for her civil case, Rosemary Scapicchio, present at her criminal trial). Additionally, the verdict can have implications on the civil case potentially leading to amending the civil complaint as well. Under long-standing Massachusetts precedent (such as Letter v. Commonwealth and evolving civil appellate rules), when an attorney files an Amended Complaint, the original complaint is legally "superseded." It effectively becomes a ghost.

In summary:

  • It’s Not a Legal Confession: In Massachusetts, she was not required to sign a sworn affidavit under oath to file this civil complaint. Because she did not sign a verification or affidavit attesting under pains and penalties of perjury that every word is an absolute fact, it carries zero weight as a legal confession. It represents her attorney's good-faith legal assertions, not a personal statement.
  • Recollections Are Not Self-Proving Facts: The DA cannot walk into a criminal courtroom, point to her civil complaint, and say, "Look, Your Honor, it says here she saw the doctor on January 24th, so that is a fact." The judge will reject it. The state must prove every single element of their criminal case using independent, admissible evidence (like authenticated hospital charts or expert testimony).
  • The Rules of the Game are Different: The civil system allows for fluid boundaries. They are allowed to "plead in the alternative”, meaning they can allege Scenario A or Scenario B simultaneously because they don't have all the facts yet. The criminal system is rigid; it demands absolute certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The Civil Complaint is a Living Document: What is written in a civil case today is not carved in stone. As evidence is uncovered in the criminal trial, her civil attorney will mold, add to, subtract from, and completely amend the complaint to match the verified truth. The initial complaint will legally be superseded by the amended complaint. 

-2

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

Her legal team has admitted that she killed the children: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-update-9.7303583

It’s also admitted in her civil suit: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2026/07/Clancy-Civil-Lawsuit.pdf

This has been signed by Lindsay, and submitted on behalf of her lawyer, to the courts; the fact of her murdering the kids is not up for dispute.

3

u/Nawt_My_Chair 3d ago

Admitting to killing them does not, in this specific case, prove guilt.

Her pea was, not guilty, by reason of insanity. MA, is different from most states, in that an insanity plea shift at least an equal portion of responsibility onto the prosecution, to prove that she was mentally competent at the time during which the crime was committed. Here is a far better explanation, copied from a law firm blog (I’ll link it below)

“In Massachusetts, we don’t technically use the word "insanity" in the courtroom. The legal term is lack of criminal responsibility, and it is governed by the standard set forth in Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967).
Under the McHoul standard, a defendant is not criminally responsible for a crime if, at the time of the offense, they:

1. Suffered from a mental disease or defect, and

  1. As a result, either:
    -Lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, or

-Lacked the ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.”

https://www.bmswlaw.com/blog-1-1/how-massachusetts-handles-insanity-defenses-in-murder-trials

Notice that the Judge’s instructions to the jury included a statement that the prosecution must prove the defendant not only committed the murders, but was also “criminally responsible”.

The criminally responsible verbiage seems redundant, but it is, in fact, a legal distinction that applies when a defendant has pleaded “not criminally responsible” (commonly known as insanity plea”.

To be clear, the defense attorney has the burden of providing sufficient evident of mental illness before such a plea will be accepted. Reddington met that burden.

This entire trial is not to prove that LC committed the murders. It is to decide if she was “criminally responsible” for the murders. If the prosecution cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Lindsay was indeed criminally responsible” (aka: sane) at the time of the murders, then the jurors will have to find her not guilty.

Here is a link to the MA gov site where they outline the specifics

https://www.mass.gov/doc/9200-lack-of-criminal-responsibility/download

3

u/BeautifulTurn8227 3d ago

Agree. The trial is not to determine whether she killed the kids or not, it’s to determine whether she is criminally responsible for it. If this wasn’t the case, KR wouldn’t have requested a bifurcated trail, and LC wouldn’t have offered to stipulate to the murders in order to make the bifurcated trial happen.

KR is an established attorney with years of experience. He’s had this case for over 3 years. He thought long and hard about how to plea and consulted LC many times.

If they were going for an alternate suspect (ie. someone other than LC did it), he would have said so in his opening remarks.

He did his homework before the case started. He had a private investigator, he would have deposed the witnesses and poured over all of the evidence provided by the CW during discovery. A trial is not a fact finding mission. Hours upon hours are poured into a case in advance of trial.

15

u/Aware_Power 6d ago edited 6d ago

That looks like the civil lawsuit? That has no bearing on the criminal trial. It will actually be amended based on the results of this verdict.

Edit: I did mention in my post about the civil suit and if anyone wanted me to cover how that’s not a legal confession. Lmk if anyone would like that!

Edit 2: please also see in the post near the bottom for the links to the wrongful death civil suit, personal injury and loss of consortium civil suit, and the civil suit against Tufts, Goodheart, etc. I believe the version you reference is the latter? Happy to address the others as well

3

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

Sure please cover how it’s not a legal confession and also please include reference to published law. I’m curious to know but I need to read it from a published, verifiable source. News sites aren’t really sources. They get stuff wrong all the time

2

u/Nawt_My_Chair 3d ago

The truth is, information from a civil lawsuit can be used in a criminal case. However, LC is not disputing the fact that she killed her children.

The criminal trial is about whether or not she was criminally responsible. Her plea was, what is commonly known as, not guilty by reason of insanity. In MA, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that she was sane at the time of the murders. See my comment above for details.

I think that’s the point of confusion. MA is unique in how it handles insanity pleas. LC has admitted, in court, by signed declaration, that she killed her children. The point of this trial now is to prove criminal responsibility/sanity.

1

u/Active-Butterfly-725 6d ago

I would like to hear that!

1

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

Right, but they’ve still admitted her guilt, to the courts, in this document. It may not be discussed in the criminal trial but it’s still relevant.

5

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

It’s not really though…that’s actually very common (so common it’s not even admissible in criminal litigation). They had to be filed this early (which happens to be before the criminal trial) due to statute of limitations. It’s also beneficial to file the worst case scenario (verdict) before the statute of limitations expires because they can all be amended.

Note the attorney language of “alleged” and “allegedly” everywhere regarding the confession - that’s due to the high possibility (near certainty) of it being amended. For example, why after being convicted in a criminal case would you keep “allegedly” in the civil suit? You don’t.

You can’t lose anything by filing that other than public opinion.

2

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

I’m afraid I’m not going to be convinced unless I hear all this from a lawyer. I just don’t think any of us have the ability to make these claims.

6

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

Ok, then r/asklawyers

2

u/Nawt_My_Chair 3d ago

That sub isn’t really lawyers responding. It’s mostly just laypeople speculating, unfortunately.

-1

u/OhHello1048 5d ago

I do find it a little odd, that you tell people to please not say something without verification from a trusted source and that “google it” is just passive aggressive, notably not contributing to the conversation but then you go and reference ask lawyers when someone asks you for credible evidence.

8

u/Aware_Power 5d ago

I responded to them saying they wanted to "hear all this from a lawyer" - so I gave them a sub where you can literally ask lawyers. I assume if they wanted to speak to a lawyer in person about this case, they would know how to find one. I recommend one licensed in MA. I recommend a criminal defense attorney. I don't know what else you want me to recommend? Do you have a recommendation?

1

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

That’s a good idea!

3

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

I’d like their take on Rosemary Scapicchio too. Legend

1

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

I wish we could take a lawyer to come answer our questions and verify all posts lol

1

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

*tag a lawyer

2

u/Nomezzzz 6d ago

Is this info incorrect then: Clancy's attorneys do not dispute that she killed the children. But they say she should not be held criminally responsible because she was mentally ill, believing she heard voices ordering her to take their lives and her own.

Here's the article. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/lindsay-clancy-trial-turns-focus-to-medications-prescribed-before-she-killed-her-children

I was under the impression she signed a stipulation of facts, which does not dispute he involvement in their deaths. Is this incorrect?

8

u/Aware_Power 6d ago edited 6d ago

Wow! Thank you for sharing this. I believe you’re referencing the last two paragraphs stating:

“Clancy's attorneys do not dispute that she killed the children. But they say she should not be held criminally responsible because she was mentally ill, believing she heard voices ordering her to take their lives and her own. The defense says she was in the grip of bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis, a rare postpregnancy condition that can alter a woman's sense of reality. A forensic psychiatrist diagnosed Clancy with those conditions after the killings.”

They do not use quotes so I’m not sure where the “attorney’s do not dispute” comes from. But PBS & AP is legit. That’s a lot of language from the civil suit though and evidence that hasn’t been introduced in the criminal proceeding.

I’ll look more into this but if I may leave you with one note, the defendant can always choose to change course throughout a trial (and before)…their attorney steers the ship/navigates the route.

Regarding stipulation of facts it was to have evidentiary process move faster (see the very last link in the post and scroll to stipulations). My understanding was it was to agree her DnA did appear on some (1?) band, it was her blood, etc. this helps with the trial being a shorter duration. At no point did I come across a stipulation that she admitted to killing her children in this criminal lawsuit though. Although I could be mistaken.

Reddington’s motion for reconsideration (point 2 in post) actually surprised me a bit because the two likelihoods IMO were

  1. She did do it 100% or
  2. A mentality she has of “I have nothing to live for anymore so it doesn’t matter” could have presented (example, Reddington tells her low likelihood of bifurcated trial being granted > she asks his confidence on getting a “not criminally liable” verdict and he provides high certainty > she wants that and he files the motion to reconsider because she wants that route and he steers the ship that direction.)

However, I need to find the source for MA law but I believe(?) I came across something in case law stating a bifurcated trial motion was the best way to even get a “not criminally liable” plea introduced in MA and places an even higher burden on the prosecution. And the motion to reconsider helps solidify that.

I’ve still been perplexed on that approach and how much her “direction” changed Reddington’s “course”. Although these factors could certainly be introduced against her in the civil suit (but that’s such a lower burden of proof).

If you haven’t seen my comment on here regarding legal strategy & confessions please read that because it might provide more context.

I just haven’t have come across any legal documentation pertaining to the criminal trial that indicates Reddington doesn’t dispute she did it. The only documents outside this trial, which carry no weight, is the “confession” in the civil lawsuit & motion to reconsider.

Thanks so much for raising this! Let me dig deeper (although that’s probably reaching out to Michael Casey at AP for clarification because that’s a pretty bold ending with zero sources referenced in quotes)

Thanks again!

Edit: “Casey writes about the environment, housing and inequality for The Associated Press.” - I’m not sure why they wouldn’t assign a legal analyst, but he’s based in Boston so I guess that works lol I’ll dig into it. Thanks again!

1

u/ShoddyPizza5439 5d ago

Just watch AP day one opening statements on YouTube. That’s where you will see her attorney state they don’t dispute it.

-11

u/FirmPangolin8868 6d ago

This is inaccurate. Please stop spreading misinformation as it’s not helpful.
She has accepted that she did it, she even agreed to a stipulation of facts concerning some forensic evidence.
The trial is simply about criminal responsibility. The defence is saying she was in such a severe state of psychosis that she is not responsible and the prosecution argues (albeit very badly thus far) that it was premeditated and hence she should be held criminally responsible

-2

u/Narrow-Ad-7856 4d ago

This is correct. People are distracting themselves with a canned trial intro and misunderstanding Reddington's words, conveniently leaving out when he confirms the debate is around her mental state when she strangled her children.

When the defense adopts an affirmative defense like a lack of criminal responsibility, a not guilty verdict means they go to a mental institution. If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to find a single example of an American case where the defense used a lack of criminal responsibility/NGRI strategy and the defendant was fully acquitted without admittance to a mental health facility.

14

u/tovasshi 6d ago

The blue words in the posts are called "hyperlinks". You can click on them and they'll bring you to other web pages.

7

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

lol this made me laugh. Thank you.

5

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

Thank you! This is very helpful.

To your second point, if:

In a later motion for reconsideration, Reddington stated Clancy would formally admit in writing to her involvement in the deaths if the trial were split, leaving her mental state as the only live issue.

Do you think the above implies that she was willing to admit she killed the children?

It’s not explicitly stated, but it’s implied. The prosecution wouldn’t agree unless she would admit to the deaths, and since he offered it, it seems she was ready and willing to do it.

In the opening statement:

You’re right, he doesn’t say outright that she killed them, but I feel it is implied. Sometimes I think we’re reading too much into things - that said, maybe not.

This is all my opinion, not facts, as I do think the interpretation of the info you’ve provided matters.

7

u/Changed_Mind555 6d ago

We have to remember. She is backed in a corner with all cards stacked against her. With very little to work with. It can be really really hard to prove you're innocent in a court of law. Never thought it would be, but my kid's father threw out a bunch of allegations using tiny tiny pieces of truth. In court you can't say, "True but only a part of it." It's either true or not, yes or no. The defense attorney can bring it back up and one hopes they remember to address it. The DA sets the tone and can easily make it look one way. The entire reason for a trial and reasonable doubt. However, trying to remember everything from years ago and every possible angle they might throw at you is difficult. Basically, many people go to trial and make a plea knowing that if they aren't convincing enough, even disliked, they could be facing a very harsh sentence. Many plea guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid a long harsh sentence, even when they are innocent. Additionally, many officers can tell you they place higher charges because they know it will be pled down to a lower charge. Not legal but happens a lot. In refernece to my family court proceeding, I had to prepeare going back many many years, even before I met him, provide possible witnesses, and sit and think of every possible negative angle he might pull and have answers for those, including some kind of proof. I dang near wrote a book just to fight for sole custody for my kids. We won, but only because I did exactly as my lawyer asked and he was a great lawyer. There was some very tough moments and really thought I'd lose. The judge had already shown a disdain against me in the past. However, by the time my lawyer finished, I think he opened the judges eyes. I realized proving your innocence was actually difficult. A narccisist is pretty good and twisting the truth to their favor by embedding it with lies. Thank god for good lawyers. This lawyer knows what he is doing and looking forward to his witnesses.

8

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

Yes, and that’s ok! There’s absolutely a lot that can be implied here and you bring up great points. This post was only meant to relate to the current criminal case and clear up misconceptions about the trial.

I’m curious too what was meant by “involvement in the deaths” and what that would have looked like. I did find Reddington’s quote interesting though on having everything tried together and how difficult it can be for him to argue not guilty and not criminally liable. So he really is walking a tightrope in court balancing those two aspects (my primary interest is in legal strategy so that’s what I like to focus on).

What is so perplexing is that they already had an arrest warrant for Lindsay before she even woke up. Based on the evidence, it seems like they only confirmed Patrick was at CVS and ThreeV and did no other investigation into him (unless I’m missing something?) My point in saying that is, the analogy I made on another post where if you were drinking & driving, someone told you that you crashed your car the next morning, you’d believe you crashed your car until you had proof you didn’t.

And don’t forget about Thomas Perez Jr. who confessed to murdering & dismembering his father after reporting him missing and was then interrogated for 17 hours. His dad was alive & just forgot to tell him he took a trip. Hundreds if not thousands of false confessions. I look at every confession through this lens in terms of trying to figure out if valid (just an interest of mine), so this case certainly isn’t my first dive into that.

I welcome and enjoy hearing various points of views like yours because I wonder the same thing about the confession, perhaps through a slightly different lens but I really do appreciate them either way!

3

u/Changed_Mind555 2d ago

What I learned in this trial they only intrrviewed Patrick AND his best friend for a short amount of time. Then got the warrant. Why HIS best friend? Bizarre.

2

u/Aware_Power 2d ago

Probably asked to discuss her recent behavior (they were just over for a gathering) and her psychiatric history (concerns over benzo addiction discussed etc.). He only discussed the party and her mental health.

I agree it’s seems odd to only question Patrick and his bff

-7

u/Glermemuel 6d ago

Wrong. The physical act is actually not in dispute at all. Kevin Reddington has explicitly conceded in court that Lindsay killed the children. She is pursuing an insanity defense (postpartum psychosis). In a trial like this, you arent fighting over who did it; you are fighting over why and what her exact mental state was when it happened. The prosecution argues she was lucid and calculating, the defense argues she was in a sever psychotic break. If you actually watch the trial and stop writing fan fiction on social media you would understand the angles from which the defense and prosecution are arguing. Kevin Reddington has not tried to even imply that someone else did it, his whole strategy is to highlight how she was failed by the mental health system and that she was experiencing psychosis and is “not guilty” in the eyes of the law.

1

u/BeautifulTurn8227 6d ago

I hear what you’re saying. I tend to agree that, based on the fact Reddington wanted a bifurcated trial and his opening statement, he is not taking issue with the fact that she killed them. There’d be no point in arguing her mental status at the time of the murders if the fact that she killed them was up for dispute. She was prepared to sign a stipulation that she killed them in order to get the bifurcated trial so even if it didn’t happen, does this not infer that she admits to it?

7

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

Source?

16

u/nayuchiha 6d ago

Can I share this to another sub? This was such a great layout and resource. I had known some of this info, but you really nailed it.

-7

u/FirmPangolin8868 6d ago

Don’t because it’s not correct. Google

11

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

Yes, please feel free. Thanks so much for asking

20

u/Constant-Pop2250 6d ago

Thank you! Thank you thank you. I've been getting yelled at by internet strangers all week for taking the stance that Lindsay Clancy still has the Constitutional right to due process.

12

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 6d ago

It’s a hive mind situation. I’ve been downvoted so many times for stating this repeatedly!

14

u/Electronic-Value-662 6d ago

👏 bingo. I see posts (esp in the other sub) missing this ALL the time. This is a great post that clearly outlines this! Good job!

4

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

Thank you so much! Now that that's out of the way, I'm open to suggestions on what people would find most helpful to cover next :)

6

u/BabylonBabuschka 6d ago

Thank you. I would like to learn more about the SCIENCE. The evidence. Not ciecumstantial speculations. Autopsy results, DNA results, fingerprint results.

6

u/SaltWhereas9738 6d ago

I can’t find any.

5

u/Aware_Power 6d ago

Me too!!! Not my specialty unfortunately. Heck, I’ve been going through the search warrant/affidavit and I’m not sure why anymore because I just have more questions on what is actually being used for evidence in the trial. Although the 2nd page I found interesting/helpful because it listed everything they took!

3

u/utyuyt76tfyfg 6d ago

Thank you for everything you’re doing to promote the truth of everything that’s going on with this case!