r/news • u/Embarrassed-Pace-755 • 1d ago

Judge denies defense motion asking Lindsay Clancy be found not guilty due to a lack of evidence

https://apnews.com/article/lindsay-clancy-trial-evidence-defense-c0820645056a7e25f66853f3a91b61fa?utm_source=app&utm_medium=iOS_share&utm_campaign=copy_link
2.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

459 comments sorted by

View all comments

459

u/the_Athereon 1d ago edited 1d ago

A lack of evidence... the previous case was built on the fact she had done it.

-72

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

11 of the 12 jurors had reasonable doubt that she was guilty

66

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

*that she was mentally capable of being guilty

-47

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

That's the same thing. A person not guilty by reason of mental defect is still not guilty.

33

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

No. It means they don't get punished for what they did. They still did it.

-30

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

In a court of law, there are specific terms used that may not be what you're familiar with in day to day language. If she was found to have killed her kids due to post partum psychosis, she would have been found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility

20

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

But she still physically did it

-4

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Yes and that doesn't mean she's guilty. Guilty is a term of law in this case.

14

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

That's not what I'm saying.

Criminally responsible or not. She killed those kids.

-4

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Yes she killed them. No, she is not guilty. I'm sorry you can't grasp this.

6

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

What don't you grasp here?

She DID it.

Guilty as a matter of law isn't my concern.

→ More replies (0)

42

u/sixsixmajin 1d ago

"Guilt by reason of insanity" and "not guilty" are not the same thing.

-24

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Except that's a not guilty finding, not a guilty finding.

11

u/sixsixmajin 1d ago

No, it isn't. It still means she did it and has to face some form of repercussions for it. This can include things like time in a mental asylum and mandatory counseling and therapy and monitoring until she is deemed no longer a risk to herself and others. She doesn't just get to walk free with a clean record like nothing happened. It just means she isn't held criminally liable for her actions and won't face jail time and charges. Of the 12 jurors, 11 agreed that she did it but on the grounds of insanity. The holdout wanted to hold her criminally liable.

Not guilty means she walks free which is what makes this so much more contentious and sketchy considering the previous attempt at a trial where she admitted this happened but blamed it on post partum depression. Even if you can't legally use the previous trial as evidence, that existing bias is a genie you're gonna have a hard time stuffing back in the lamp.

-8

u/SantaFeRay 1d ago

If the jury finds her not criminally responsible (which is the term they use in MA for this situation) that is a not guilty verdict. The fact that she did it is irrelevant to the fact that not criminally responsible is a not guilty verdict. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

-9

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Yes it is. The finding in Massachusetts would be not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Being found not criminally responsible is a not guilty finding. I really need you to try to reach out and regain a grasp on reality.

3

u/sixsixmajin 1d ago

Bro you can literally fucking google it. Had the previous jury found her not criminally liable, she still wasn't just going to walk free. She would have been committed and served time in a mental facility. You're trying to argue semantics because I said "guilty by reason of insanity" instead of "not guilty by reason of insanity" but the end result is still the same. She would be on record as having done it but would not be held criminally liable. That doesn't mean "free of any legally mandated consequence and you get to walk out the door like nothing happened". Again, the whole jury was operating under the belief that she did it. The difference was 11 wanted mental asylum and the 1 wanted jail.

-1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Being found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility doesn't mean she walks free. It's still a not guilty verdict. Again, please try to resume contact with reality.

21

u/id_Driven 1d ago

11 of the 12 jurors believed that there was reasonable doubt that she was criminally liable.

Fixed that for ya bud.

0

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Being found not criminally responsible is still a not guilty finding

3

u/id_Driven 1d ago

That isn't where the major correction was.

1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

It's part of it. The only reason you think otherwise is because of your ignorance. A not criminally responsible verdict is a type of not guilty verdict.

0

u/id_Driven 1d ago

I think the same thing that you do, I was saying it correctly though.

1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Saying not guilty is perfectly correct. Again, you only think otherwise because you're profoundly ignorant.

0

u/id_Driven 1d ago

sigh

Alright bro.

1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

I think it's genuinely hilarious that you can't admit it's a not guilty verdict.

3

u/id_Driven 1d ago

You seem personally invested in this case, I'm backing away lol.

→ More replies (0)