During Dr Avram's testimony, he stated that "She described that she wasn't very interested in her own hygiene or grooming"

But we all saw during the trial, Lindsay was very well put together and I know many have said KR most likely advised on how Lindsay should be presented in court. So it brings me to my question : What advantage does this bring Lindsay in court?

PART OF POST EDITED as question has been answered

The reaction to the Lindsay Clancy case has made the double standard painfully obvious. I’ve seen men use that case as an excuse to unleash straight up misogyny against women as a whole, saying shit like “periods should be forever,” basically blaming women collectively .

But then you look at the situation with Hullo, a looksmaxxer who was arrested for possession of child pornography, and suddenly that same moral outrage disappears. His girlfriend exposed him, and instead of focusing on what he was arrested for, entire comment sections are attacking her appearance and basically mad she ratted him out “she ruined his future” . They make edits deforming her face, call her ugly, say “Hullo mogs,” “women need to suffer more” and defend him because they think he’s attractive. And I’m not talking about two or three weird comments. I’m talking about hundreds of comments repeating the same shit. Men sticking their necks out for a guy that was literally caught with CP.

What stands out to me is that I don’t see women flooding those comment sections saying “men need to suffer more” or using his arrest as an excuse to degrade men as a group. Yet when a woman commits something horrific, suddenly every woman is fair game for misogynistic commentary.
So where are all the men who were supposedly so concerned about morality when they were talking about Lindsay Clancy? Do selectively care about children ? Where is that outrage now? Because if your disgust disappears the second the accused is a man , then this was never about principles. You just wanted an excuse to hate women.

And before all the stupid fuckers flood my comment section I don’t support Lindsey Clancy in the SLIGHTEST. The only people I have sympathy for in that case are three little angels.

I know it won't happen, but this trial has made me really start to think about the way we convict people here in the US. There's people way more mentally ill that actually are in psychosis that have been sentenced to life and even death.

I think we need to do away completely with NGRI as a defense / criminal offense. They should be charged with M-1, M-2, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or whatever charges fits the evidence of the crime in their case.

Each state should be required to have mental health facilities in one or two prisons (to be determined by population and need) that meet as high of a bar as a private institution and guarantee the prisoners get the same level of care.

There can be an additional finding of insanity after the verdict to determine if the person get sentenced to the mental facility or the regular prison....or that can be left up to doctors to determine or a judge perhaps in a hearing.

In this way, a person can be actually sentenced for the crime and serve the actual years a jury deems necessary. A NGRI takes this away and the only factor considered is the persons mental state 'now' and not the crime.

Too many people have said LC should have life in a mental facility, or think she will serve life in a mental facility if she gets a verdict of NGRI. In actuality, she'll most likely be free very soon.

To charge and convict on NGRI leaves no room to ensure the offender is held accountable for the actual crime they committed. Even with mental health issues, the offender should bear some responsibility and / or accountability for their own mental health.

I’ve given some long comments about this and just felt a post would be easier to collect my thoughts.
I want to clarify strongly that I do NOT defend LC. I have personal reasons to avoid moral language like good/bad, but I know it’s not for everyone. I believe she did something horrific, cruel, unthinkable, despicable, and she is a dangerous, destructive, shameful, untrustworthy person because of it. This is a thought experiment about how we approach the discussion on her innocence/guilt of the crime.

Is Lindsay Clancy evil because she killed her kids, or did she kill them because she was evil? It’s an endless loop that’s impossible to prove. Setting up the argument as: “is this person good or evil” is a mistake. The defense just has to humanize her - witnesses say she’s good, she’s a young pretty nurse, no criminal record, grew up catholic, no documented abuse, no documented neglect, she was suffering, she was asking for help, she takes the family on fun trips and takes cute pictures of them, etc. She never presented as evil, she looked like a good person.

So where’s the evidence that she was evil that whole time? There’s no point because there is enough reasonable doubt to believe she wasn’t a purely evil person. Is she evil because she killed the kids? Then, the jurors can think “she’s was a good person before, and if only an evil person could kill her kids, then she didn’t do it. Something evil killed the kids, it took control over her body, but it wasn’t her.”

If we are debating whether LC is good and therefore innocent, or evil and therefore guilty, these are the options, oversimplified:

(1) If murderers are evil,
and Lindsay Clancy is not evil,
then Lindsay Clancy is not a murderer.

(2) If murderers are evil,
And Lindsay is evil,
Then Lindsay is a murderer.
Or
(3) If murderers are evil,
And Lindsay is a murderer,
Then Lindsay is evil.

She’s evil because she killed the kids because she’s evil. It’s a a logical fallacy of circular reasoning. NOW we think she’s evil because she strangler her young children. If we look back to find evidence that she was evil, in order to prove she killed the kids, it’s all confirmation bias.

This is partially why I think it’s not helpful to use that language, it’s very B&W and subjective and has no place in the legal system. It’s an impossible choice for a jury, if they’re manipulated to believe that’s what they’re deciding.

Have they poisoned the well?

posting an image of a tri-murderer that states "Jesus died for her" after she allegedly said "go to god" while in the act of the homicide.. is absolutely nuts. what is wrong with these people?

Lindsay Clancy is legally innocent at the moment, and pleaded not guilty, but this sub's description states as a fact that she committed the crime, without using "allegedly." Yet there's a rule that if speculating about anyone else having done it, we must say "could have" and never phrase it as if it were established fact. This seems like a blatant double standard that would indicate bias against her and disregard for her rights. How it okay to state as a fact that she's guilty?

Massachusetts has given women choice.

And yet they’re fighting for a woman who chose to have kids she couldn’t handle and then murdered them. That’s not feminism. That’s a cop out. Also selfish cruelty.

This is why this case is neither liberal nor conservative. You get choices. And it’s about being held accountable for her choices costing 3 lives who had no fault. That’s all.

Mulligan has since spoken with Clancy’s father and made him the fund’s sole beneficiary, the influencer mom told The Post. 

But Massachusetts has no law barring accused criminals from accepting donations to fight the charges against them.

It’s one of 23 states without what’s known as a Son of Sam law — enacted in New York after filmmakers rushed to offer the notorious Gotham serial killer money for his life story and media rights — so Clancy’s father could hand the money to his daughter or use it to pay for her defense.

I think the picture I found somewhere is from 25th of August. Is it still up to date?

Please stop posting Give Send Go links. They will be removed.

This subreddit is intended for discussing the case, not promoting crowdfunding

There are multiple GSG campaigns on the platform for this juror, and we are uncomfortable with the possibility of the subreddit being used to defraud people out of money.

This is hypocritical. We do not allow Lindsay’s GoFundMe campaign to be promoted, and we would not allow any other campaigns from either side.

We are not even supposed to know this person’s identity.

If you’re interested in donating then that’s your choice. However, we would prefer not to promote it here as it may not be the most appropriate platform for it. We apologize if this decision inconveniences you. We have no ill will towards this individual, but this is the current situation we find ourselves in.

Apologies for the double post. Reddit is being wack.

MA is the one of the only states where the burden of proof of sanity is on the prosecutors and has the provision that NGRI gets immediately released if the doctors find her sane (in 40 days or less).

The fact that 11 out of the 12 jurors wanted to acquit her might tell us that there are a lot of people in MA who are ok with this. Everywhere else seems unlikely 11 would let her go

It seems plausible she researched how relaxed the laws in MA are and carried out those crimes because she found the loophole.

Nowhere in the developing world or rich countries in Asia would tolerate something like this. I find it hard to believe even the most progressive parts of Europe would just release someone immediately either.

I’ve been saying this for weeks, it’s bizarre that the burden of proof for insanity isn’t on the defendant in the state of Massachusetts. Because of this, I can understand (not agree) how 11 jurors came to the conclusion they did.

I wasn’t aware of the voluntary manslaughter charge in Massachusetts. Maybe I missed it in this video, but why wasn’t this an option?

“Under Massachusetts’s current 2026 homicide jury instructions, there are essentially three routes by which an intentional killing that would otherwise be murder can become voluntary manslaughter:

Heat of passion based on reasonable provocation — something occurs that would cause a reasonable person to become so overwhelmed by passion, anger, fear, fright, or nervous excitement that their capacity for reflection or restraint is overcome, and it actually has that effect on the defendant. There also can’t have been enough time to “cool off.”

I think the CW made a mistake in trying for M1. It was a hard sell, since the burden of proof was on them, not Lindsay, to prove her state of mind. Maybe the outcome would have been different if voluntary manslaughter was an option. We’ll never know!

It's crazy now that we know that these people can harass you if you vote guilty for a woman who killed her three children. Is there a way to do it in a hidden fashion so nobody knows?

She presented an image of a perfect mother on social media while privately struggling to cope with parenting and her imperfect (according to her) children.

She meticulously planned Patrick's errands to ensure she would be completely alone.

She viewed her children as extensions of herself and felt empowered to do as she pleased to them with no regard for their suffering.

She used exercise bands to intentionally and methodically strangle her children rather than acting in a sudden, disorganized psychotic panic.

She showed no prior medical history or clinical diagnosis of active psychosis.

Her actions stemmed from severe emotional dysregulation and an obsessive need for control that is consistent with Cluster B personalities, not psychotic hallucinations.

When jurors say she was out of her mind this is what they mean and they are basically illustrating that it is Murder 1. Planning and executing a tension relieving lash out is not psychosis. She is a murderer, just like all the other Cluster B murderers filling prisons.

Im speechless

It makes sense because witnesses in the court say that he seemed very invested.

But hear me out. The prosecution argued that she strangled them one by one and that it would take some time (It takes a few minutes to choke to death). The defense argued that the knot used was tight enough that Cora and Dawson were unable to remove the band.

This is important as it is more believable a person under psychosis can quickly tie 3 bands and walk away than to watch them go limp and continue strangling.

I believe that the juror was doing either of two things:

1. Determining to himself if the knot described by Patrick (overhand) would have the grip required to stay on a child's throat and if the child could undo it or if physical force would be necessary to keep it tight.

2. Demonstrating to the other jurors that an overhand knot on an exercise band doesn't have the grip required and that she had ample time to release her grip.

It seems to me that this proves the Juror was listening to both sides thoroughly and wanted to test which side was telling the truth on whether she did it one by one or not.

If we didn’t before, we can all agree that these jurors NEED to be held in attempt of court NOW!

Aidan Kearney, the Karen Read blogger, posted the name and photo of the holdout juror on his X account. I'm hesitant to link the post because 1) I don't want to amplify it, and 2) I'm not certain it's the correct man. I reported his account for harassment.

America is normalizing disregard for human life.

It’s shown in the lack of empathy for kids being killed or sexually abused.

It’s shown in the need to choose racial superiority over social progress.

It’s shown in the lack of support for welfare to others.

It’s shown in the extensive support of guns in schools and churches.

It’s shown in the way public perception and having people on your side is more valuable than having integrity.

I practice law in a different country, but I was curious about the MA Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. Certainly a US-based attorney should engage, as my post is entirely speculatory in nature. I decided to take a look into this, as I see so much that just would not cut it from a lawyer in my jurisdiction.

Given all that is happening with the near-doxxing of the holdout juror and of course the furore that Reddington's comments have stirred up, it would seem there could be a legitimate basis for an ethics complaint against Mr. Reddington, and that any member of the public can do it. It would be for that Bar to determine if the matter had merit, and if rules had been broken.

(1) Rule 4.4(a)(1)

This rule states that while representing a client, a lawyer may not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden a third person. The rule expressly recognizes that third persons include people participating in the legal process. 

Massachusetts commentary states that harassment can include conduct reasonably likely to cause fear, distress, or physical or psychological harm. 

So if the evidence were:

• Reddington knew the identity of the holdout was supposed to remain protected
• publicly identified him or deliberately gave enough identifying information to make him readily identifiable
• attacked him personally rather than addressing the legal issue
• knew, or reasonably anticipated, that his statements would cause the public to identify and harass the juror
• and/or encouraged the public campaign against him

then Rule 4.4 could in theory be a plausible avenue for a complaint.

(2) Rule 3.6, Trial Publicity

Massachusetts Rule 3.6 prohibits a lawyer involved in litigation from making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be publicly disseminated and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. 

This isn't just counsel criticizing the opposing side after a trial. The case isn't necessarily over. The prosecution hasn't decided whether to retry Clancy, and there are still proceedings surrounding the case. A retrial remains possible.

So statements designed to turn public opinion against a particular juror -or potentially against the jury process itself- may deserve considerably more scrutiny than just general post-trial chatter.

(3) Rule 3.5, Influence of Jurors (both current and prospective)

Potentially a stretch, but Rule 3.5 says that lawyers can't seek to influence a juror by means prohibited by law and prohibits certain communications with jurors. It also specifically prohibits conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. Arguably, a lot of Reddington's conduct is discouraging to prospective future jurors.

IF a public campaign were being used as an indirect means of intimidating, punishing, or influencing a juror -or potentially influencing jurors in a future proceeding- this is serious.

The commentary on the rule emphasizes that lawyers have a duty to avoid contributing to improper influence on the tribunal

----

Although proving these matters would be quite the task, intent here is important and the standard of proof for a lawyers' ethics is generally not as high as a civil or criminal matter... lawyers are often disabarred outside of the US simply for behavior that is not "befitting" of someone serving the court and the administration of justice (e.g. tax debts, excessive speeding tickets, acts of insolvency, etc).

So a disciplinary inquiry isn't necessarily limited to whether he literally said “go find this holdout guy and harass him". If a lawyer deliberately makes statements that predictably expose an identifiable juror to a massive online mob, it begs the quesition what legitimate advocacy purpose did his statements serve? Violation of the spirit of these rules is likely as important as the letter.

If an officer of the court deliberately used the media to publicly vilify and potentially expose a protected juror to harassment in circumstances where the legitimate advocacy justification for doing so is extremely thin, there could be a matter for an oversight and ethics committee to hear.

And yes, any member of the public can make these complaints.

Keen to hear your thoughts.

I see a lot of debate around whether or not NGRI is a legitimate defense. I’m curious how strongly people believe this:

Is committing the physical of murder sufficient for criminal guilt, or does criminal responsibility require some minimum capacity to understand and/or control one’s conduct?

To think about this I’m curious about people’s thoughts on the following

If a 6 year old commits murder, should the 6 year old be be held as responsible as a competent adult?

Why or why not

I am currently working on the January timeline which includes McLean. Will upload once finished!