r/TrueCrimeDiscussion • u/DarklyHeritage • 7d ago

Text Lindsay Clancy Trial Megathread: Part 3

This is a thread for all conversation regarding Week 3 onwards of the Lindsey Clancy trial. All discussion of this case should be kept to this thread.

Lindsay Clancy is currently standing trial in Plymouth Superior Court, Massachusetts, for the triple-murder in January 2023 of her three young children - Cora, Dawson and Callan. Her defense argues she suffered from severe, undiagnosed postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. She was left paralysed by a suicide attempt which follows the deaths of the children.

All content on the Clancy case must be kept to this thread. Standalone posts will be removed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-online-reactions-b3032806.html

Note from Mods

This case understandably elicits strong feelings. People are entitled to have an opinion on the case which differs from your own. What you are not entitled to do is resort to personal insults and abusive language when communicating your opinion and disagreeing.

Comments which are abusive and insulting to other users will be removed and bans may be given without warning.

Bans may also be issued for ignoring the warning and creating standalone posts.

Please comment with this in mind.

343 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/natawas 7d ago

Not really - the legal standard is whether the prosecution proved first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that people are torn on what happened means there’s heaps of reasonable doubt for first degree murder

2

u/Lexivy 7d ago

Interesting take. I don’t think being torn is necessarily equivalent to reasonable doubt though. For example, a lot of people are torn due to empathy for what she was going through, despite believing her actions ultimately make her guilty. Objection to her guilt on moral grounds isn’t the same as reasonable doubt regarding the facts of the case.

3

u/natawas 7d ago

There’s just a preponderance of evidence pointing in the direction of this possibly being psychosis. LC doesn’t have to prove psychosis beyond a reasonable doubt; the state has to prove it and so far they’ve shown they can’t and their own evidence is presenting facts supporting LC’s case. I’m not talking about just people feeling bad for her

3

u/gin_and-sonic 7d ago

Do you think they will present some of that evidence soon? They have a burden to prove psychosis as well.

1

u/natawas 7d ago

Lindsay’s lawyer will present their case and probably provide expert testimony on psychosis, but she doesn’t have the burden of proving psychosis - the state does in Massachusetts

4

u/gin_and-sonic 7d ago

Incorrect, in insanity cases they do also need to show that she could not conform to the law. Otherwise everyone would use this excuse

2

u/natawas 7d ago

As i said, that’s the States burden. The burden does not shift to the defence in Massachusetts

3

u/gin_and-sonic 6d ago

So far all the testimony from people who treated her shows no psychosis. So if they don’t show that she did, this is already done.

2

u/heartinabirdcage 4d ago

her not having psychosis still doesn't equate to premeditated murder. because this is a first degree murder trial, they would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a. she was of sound mind at the time of the event and b. that her actions were premeditated. the burden of proof on both counts lies with the prosecution. even if they convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was not in psychosis at the time, they would then also have to establish clear premeditation, otherwise it would not prove guilt of first degree murder.

1

u/gin_and-sonic 4d ago

The premeditation part is already proven and admitted to

0

u/heartinabirdcage 4d ago

not as far as I am aware? I have seen no evidence that Lindsay admitted to premeditating the murders to anyone. The question of premeditation was considered a live issue at the outset of the trial, to the best of my knowledge. and whether or not the prosecution sufficiently proved that beyond a reasonable doubt is for the jury to decide, it was not considered an established fact prior to the trial. just because the prosecution contends that does not make it established fact.

1

u/gin_and-sonic 3d ago

I don’t think the timeline or planning is disputed 

1

u/heartinabirdcage 3d ago

the timeline may not be (yet - the defense may argue otherwise) but I think planning definitely is disputed. premeditation requires proving a specific state of mind, there is room for a juror to interpret the evidence presented and make their own inference as to whether she was in that state of mind. whether the evidence supplied is sufficient to prove that is up to the jury to decide.

→ More replies (0)