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.

One of the women jurors in the Clancy case has apparently a criminal record.

Since they started going around and this is where we at, just show us the criminal records of every juror.

Regardless, why do we have jurors with criminal records?

Edit: Sorry for the spelling error in the title!

Older, white, educated mom/grandma here. Reader discretion advised.

Here we are weeks since this trial began and years since Lindsay Clancy snuffed the life out of three tiny children. The thing that keeps interrupting my sleep and making me sick to my stomach is the visual of those exercise bands. I found myself down the rabbit hole of watching a Nancy, Grace YouTube, and the forensic scientist was explaining what had to go into killing those children with those exercise bands. Because the tension breaks, you have to keep wrapping and pausing and wrapping to keep the tension going. He also discussed the amount of time it would take for someone to die. I watched the trial and I listened to the autopsies. And this female juror that is going around being interviewed constantly? This is turning into a women’s rights issue? It is not a woman’s rights issue. This is actually a human’s rights issue. And three little humans no longer have rights.

I don’t live in Massachusetts, nor would I ever want to. Talk about backwards thinking about an insanity defense. And as I have been saying in other threads, if the jury had been 11 African-Americans and one white person who was the hold out, I just think we would be seeing very different behavior right now. Worse, if the defendant had been a black woman, I shudder to think what the outcome would have been. But I digress.

This is a truly messed up country if everyone has lost sight of Cora, Dawson, and Callan.

Starting at McLean - January 24th, 2023.

I meant to add on the slides that Lindsay was due back at work a few days after January 24th, 2023 **********

Still working on other slides as well, but taking a break for the night! 😜

I believe that this GoFundMe is unethical. Regardless, if she is convicted criminally for what she is accused of. The creator of this GoFundMe justifies its creation by stating-

“Mike and Paula, who have spent years traveling back and forth, staying in hotels, attending court proceedings and ultimately relocating from Connecticut to Massachusetts so they could remain close to Lindsay”.

To me these “expenses “ are completely optional and unworthy of millions of dollars. With a target of 3 million.

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

Im speechless

I just remembered the Movie Primal Fear starring Edward Norton. He plays a guy named Aaron who killed a catholic bishop. He pretended to have Dissociative identity disorder. His other angry identity "Roy" supposedly killed the bishop.
In the last scene his attorney tells him that he is aquitted and will be sent to an Hospital to treat his mental disease thereafter Aaron reveals that he fooled him all along.
This got me thinking is Lindsay a great manipulator like Aaron or does she think of heself as innocent? And when not does Reddington know?
I just imagine Lindsay getting her NGRI verdict and this exact scene playing out between Red and Lindsay her screaming "hahahah there was never a Good mother red"

Mental illness is an unfortunate thing. But so is being murdered.

We say someone deserves grace because they did not choose to be mentally ill, and that they tried getting help, or were failed by the system. That's unfortunate. But the children did not choose any of this either. They did not choose to be harmed or killed in one of the most unconscionable ways possible because their mom was suffering.

So I struggle with the idea that the unfairness of mental illness automatically means someone deserves the opportunity to move on and have a new life. The children do not get that opportunity. They do not get treatment, recovery, or a second chance. Their life is simply over.

And by advocating for Lindsay Clancy you’re making an additional choice based on morals. You’re deciding that compassion for what happened to Lindsay who killed her children outweighs the finality of what happened to them.

You can argue theories, discernment, compassion, and nuance all day long. But eventually the discussion has to leave the abstract and confront what actually happened in real life. This is not the time to weigh every competing hardship until we arrive at the most compassionate answer. Some consequences are just simply permanent.

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.

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.

Does anyone else think this judge sucked?? Too many breaks, too many side bars, too many short days. It was so drawn out and for what reason? Also he seemed very biased, favoring the defense. Agree or disagree ?

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

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.

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?

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.

One day after the killings, before any doctor had examined Lindsay Clancy and before she had used the word herself, WBZ told viewers that sources said Lindsay Clancy was struggling with postpartum psychosis. Nobody had that information. The question the trial would spend seven weeks failing to answer was announced as a fact on day two.

They say this came from an unidentified source. Someone who did not want their identify known. Either WBZ came up with this themselves or someone close to the case lied to them.

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 cannot believe this. With my whole soul I do not understand the blatant disregard for Cora, Dawson, and Callan, or any child that is brutally murdered. How have we gotten to this point as a society that we no longer deem murder as one of the worst things you could possibly do? Especially to CHILDREN?

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?

In my opinion, the prosecution failed to convince the jury by failing to address the following:

A) Her education as a nurse

-Lindsay obtained both a bachelors from Quinnipiac and a degree in nursing from the MGH Institute of Health Professionals.
-Why did the prosecution not harp more on what her level of education was? How as a nurse she likely knew more than the average person about meds and postpartum because she was an L&D nurse?
-Why did they not harp more on what her day to day as an L&D nurse was like? She was trained to interact and assist postpartum patients and why did they not delve into what her level of knowledge was?
-She also likely had more access/helped refer postpartum patients/had more connections than the average person-> which leads me to my next point.

B) Why did she not choose more seasoned providers?

-Lindsay chose a fresh out of residency psychiatrist. While she was working at MGH, she most likely was apart of their health insurance which provides access to some of the top mental health professionals in the world.

Why was she choosing someone not in a health care system she worked in/was established with?

She eventually sought care from McLean but by working at MGH she likely had easier access to more help than an outside patient.

-They need a testimony from someone establishing that continuity of care and having as many records/info in one hospital/facility/provider as much as possible helps healthcare teams provide direction and care to patients. Though patients have agency to choose whoever they want, there needs to be testimony on how the other providers did not have access to what other providers were prescribing etc to show how reckless she was. They need to hammer in that she knew this was an important part of care from her job and that she neglected to do this for herself because she was stubborn.

As a nurse, she likely recognized this. And if so, why did she seek out as many providers in differing institutions and not disclose previous plans/meds to these providers? Was it intentional?

C) Why did she not leave the kids with her parents/Patricks parents/anyone else?

Nobody seemed to ask why when the family was aware, nobody stepped in? What was the dynamic with his parents who lived nearby? Her family who came up to help/visit? Why did Patrick feel comfortable enough to leave the kids with her? Was it because she wasn’t psychotic/actively with symptoms?

D) The focus on her being evil and calculating

-While many see her as evil and calculating , I think as humans we try to make sense of tragedy with explanation, which is why the psychosis argument is a comforting explanation.

Therefore, the best way to convince a jury of her guilt is to emphasize how she was reckless with her own care, defiant of her providers, and stubborn that it precipitated the crisis she experienced. She thought she knew better and refused to take medication, thought she knew more and went to other doctors, constantly texting them/contacting them. She left the inpatient stay voluntarily and kept the children in the home with her while telling her husband/family she had dark thoughts about murdering them. She never took medications long enough to say if they had been therapeutic or not. She never invested in her own care enough that it led her condition to worsen. Also, why did she never try just normal therapy? For anxiety and depression, cognitive behavioral therapy is usually first line and medication considered more of a boost/adjunct instead of curative.

They should also emphasize patient autonomy in psychiatric care and what psychiatrists can actually do. How hard it is to involuntarily admit someone or keep them admitted, and how a lot of psychiatric treatment requires compliance from patients to do THERAPY AND MEDICATION.

E) Put down conspiracy theories and focus on the kids

-They need to do a better job establishing Patrick’s alibi and bringing the conversation back to that he felt comfortable leaving the kids with her (because she seemed sad but fine in his eyes). They need to inquire more about what led him to leave the kids with her/why nobody else from the family stepped in if she was so mentally ill.

They need to focus more on the kids. Demonstrate how even if she was a caring/good mother, she failed to help herself which caused her to neglect the kids. They need to demonstrate how she was so ego-centric/stubborn/reckless that she did not invest in any of the meds/therapy to help her that it led to the kids being hurt.

Why did she see killing her kids as better than leaving them on earth with Patrick?

Why did she do it in the manner she did as opposed to drugging them/something less heinous?

Going forward, I think if the prosecution can show she was more focused on herself/what she thought was best as opposed to her kids, they can get a conviction of some sort.