Tag Archives: Lindsay Clancy

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Posted on by

The Lindsay Clancy trial is over, but the repercussions continue. The behavior of her defense attorney and some of the jurors may have legal consequences.

On Sunday, PJ Media posted an article about the doxxing of the one juror who refused to go along with a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

The article reports:

A doxxing campaign to identify, mob, and hurt the holdout Lindsay Clancy juror is in full operation. 

To give you an appreciation for the dynamics, however, let’s go through The Dozens on some of the wacky ways of the Clancy case.

She was a sterling mother … right up until she killed her kids in separate, planned strangulation executions with her workout rope bands in her basement. 

Court testimony determined she lied about what drugs she was taking to the multiplicity of caregivers from which she sought help.

She never told those multiplicity of mental healthcare workers that she wanted to kill her kids, for fear of having them taken away. 

The jury itself admitted in an NBC Boston backyard interview with three jurors, which looked more like the meeting of a coven, that nurses on the jury offered testimony inside the jury room on toxicology issues. Had prosecutors known that, they could have moved for a mistrial. 

The article notes:

Setting the table for the doxxing yet to come, Reddington (Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington), said in public that the holdout juror “robbed” the other jurors of their chosen verdict, saying, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”

And now the mob has been activated. 

Reddington’s wife is part of the mob, posting multiple social media messages, one of which was to direct people to the NBC Boston story in which the coven member began the process of doxxing the juror.

But she was just getting warmed up. Deb Reddington pushed the narrative that the holdout juror was a “criminal” and a “squatter.” In 2021, he was arrested on domestic violence charges, and later released. The nephew who reported the incident then put a restraining order on him. It expired. The couple is now divorced.

The article reports:

Reddington should have been held in contempt, of course, for his extrajudicial rantings. But that only makes plain the idea that the jurors should have been sequestered and a gag put on those involved in the case, so as not to stoke the mob in the first place. 

The defense attorney’s wife, a realtor, has since taken down her X account. 

There should be some serious legal consequences for Attorney Reddington and his wife.

Setting A Really Bad Precedent

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the Lindsay Clancy trial in Massachusetts. The article notes that under Massachusetts law, the question was not one of guilt or innocence, but one of whether or not Lindsay Clancy “retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of [her] conduct and to conform [her] conduct to the requirements of the law.”

The article notes:

The simple fact that Clancy waited until her husband had left the house to murder her children is strong evidence that she knew it was wrong to kill them, and was able to control her homicidal impulse until it could be carried out successfully.

The holdout juror was, it seems to me, a voice for civilization in a world that seems willing to dispense with the most fundamental norms. Kudos to him.

What I really want to comment on is the behavior of Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, and the apparent spinelessness of the trial judge, William Sullivan. Reddington repeatedly attacked the holdout juror in open court and on television, both as the jury was deliberating and after the court had declared a mistrial. While deliberations were still going on, Reddington accused the juror of “lying to the court” and refusing to follow the court’s instructions.

The article notes:

I have never seen anything like this. I tried many jury cases, and I can’t imagine how a trial judge before whom I appeared would have come down on me if I had publicly attacked a particular juror, or group of jurors, as the trial was in progress. It is unheard of. And Judge Sullivan let Reddington get away with it, while, at Reddington’s insistence, holding hearings in open court, in front of television cameras, that should have been conducted privately in chambers. Given this behavior, it is hard to see how the court will be able to find jurors willing to serve in a potential retrial.

As I have previously stated, whether she is found guilty of innocent Lindsay Clancy should not be out on the street after murdering her three children. A mental institution for the rest of her life or a jail would be appropriate. This is not a crime that someone should simply walk away from.

Is The Response More Significant Than The Trial?

Posted on by

In Plymouth, Massachusetts the trial of Lindsay Clancy has been going on for about a month. Lindsay Clancy is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the 2023 deaths of her children. The defense is claiming that postpartum psychosis caused her to kill the children. I am not unsympathetic to postpartum mental issues, but three children are dead.

On Friday, Zero Hedge reported:

A mob of liberal women decked out in pink is taking to the streets in front of the Plymouth Superior Courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts for a rally in support of Lindsay Clancy during her ongoing murder trial. The group, which is often accused of being “terminally online”, has been invading social media discussions for weeks to inject arguments in defense of Clancy, who confessed to the murder of her three helpless children.

Now, these women (and a few beta husbands) are going offline and showing up en masse to explain why Lindsay Clancy should go free.

She has confessed to the murders. She was on numerous drugs that were supposed to help her with her mental issues. She had reached out to family members and the medical community screaming for help. She bears sole responsibility for the murders, but how many trained professionals and others  failed her along the way?

I do not want to see Lindsay Clancy go free. I want her either in a mental institution or in jail. There are three dead children as a result of her decisions whether or not she was in her right mind when she made those decisions. Do we value the lives of those children?

Jail may not be the right place–a mental institution might be. I do not want Lindsay Clancy to be living a normal life after this crime.

The article notes:

The postpartum argument is held up as if it is proof of innocence, but in reality, it suggests that the person is even more dangerous than a typical criminal. If an otherwise unassuming woman has the ability to appear absolutely normal and insinuate herself into the lives of others, only to become a bloodthirsty murderer of children at the flip of a switch, then she can never be trusted to enter back into society ever again. She can never be trusted to have children or go near children again.

The punishment should be more severe, not less. This is why America used to have a large network of mental hospitals, to keep people like this locked away for good. Instead, liberal ideology has created an environment in which criminals with the right identity are treated with more empathy than their victims.

If this continues for much longer, it will mean the downfall of western civilization.

The Lindsay Clancy trial has also become another focal point for what many now call a “plague” on the internet: Amateur Detective Wine-Moms (ADWMs).

Conspiracy theories on social media, spread by these same women, assert that Lindsay Clancy is actually a “patsy” and that her husband is the killer. Even though numerous pieces of evidence including surveillance footage and cell phone tracking shows Clancy’s husband at a local CVS pharmacy at the time of the murder, these women have read hundreds of true crime novels and think they are better investigators than the authorities involved.

It will be interesting to see what the verdict on this trial is.