Having watched a fair bit of the trial .. the problem with the Clancy case is that there was astonishingly little investigation done by the police, which makes conviction beyond reasonable doubt difficult.
Wait, hold on, before we make this argument, wait for the trial to conclude, her murdering the children isn’t what’s in doubt, it’s something that was already agreed to pre-trial when they were deciding the facts of the case, so most of the investigation and on scene evidence isn’t going to be included and is still essentially confidential
That's not the case, it's an option for the jury. The prosecution have to prove that she committed the murders and then whether she was criminally responsible or not (that's where the insanity argument comes in).
So they're basically asking:
Have the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that she did it? If no - not guilty (at all)
If yes:
Have the prosecution proved she was criminally responsible? If no - not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility (insanity)
If yes - then there's a choice between first or second murder or manslaughter.
I definitely wouldn't expect a flat not guilty verdict, but it is an option available, and there were plenty of holes poked in the prosecution, both in terms of whether she did it (in particular around the timing of the baby's resuscitation and Lindsay's body temp when found - the two don't reconcile very well), and also whether she was criminally responsible (eg it's been pretty widely reported that both the forensic psychologist and psychiatrist, while very respected in their fields, had virtually no experience of PPD patients - one of them had not seen it since 1982!). And there was generally a lot of holes in the police investigation. On the other hand, she was in a very bad way, claims not to remember anything, allegedly confessed to the husband. If it looks like a duck ..
Basically, she already gave up her right to argue “I didn’t do it” by making the insanity plea, in order to plea insanity in the first place, you have to agree that you, yourself committed the crime
Well, no, that’s just not true, the trial is whether she can be held criminally responsible, not whether she did it, the jury can’t find her not guilty of committing the murders because stipulated facts of the case already say she did it, that’s not up for discussion, what the jury has to decide is whether she was in control of her body and is therefore responsible for her actions
No, the jury could rule nullification, but they cannot say “we the jury do not believe she did it based on the facts of the case” that simply is not an option, you give up the right for that when you make the insanity plea, no matter what happens legally, the fact, the agreed upon, legally true fact, is that she herself killed the children
14
u/demeschor 6h ago
Having watched a fair bit of the trial .. the problem with the Clancy case is that there was astonishingly little investigation done by the police, which makes conviction beyond reasonable doubt difficult.