She Knew EXACTLY What She Was Doing... | DSH #2133

Jared Mello (0:00)

And just because it's unlikely that you hear a voice one time doesn't mean it will never happen. There can always be things that happen in a rarity, and that contributes to the reasonable doubt, if you ask me, like just because it's not going to be black and white.

Matt Moyer (0:12)

You have to hold some kind of legal line, you have to hold some kind of moral line where you say, gosh, man, if a person their kids, we can't just say, hey, the mental hospital can let you out in two months, one month, one day. You can't just leave it to that. There has to be a message sent.

Billy (0:25)

The reason why it was 11 to one was because prosecution had no case. They had no case. Like when Jennifer Tufts was called up, when the therapists were called up, and they just were kids on the stand and they couldn't answer questions. How come she didn't get better? Why did you keep giving her more medication? It painted this terrible picture. They had no case.

Danny Minor (0:43)

But there's no way this woman who strangled each kid for four minutes, guys, four minutes, she's strangling, and we're gonna let her walk the street. There's no way that lady should walk the street.

Jared Mello (1:01)

So my thoughts on this matter are there is no way by Massachusetts state law that they're gonna be able to convict her of murder given their rules on insanity, meaning she has to have a mental defect or disease or defect, which she did.

The prosecution first said they didn't believe that, but then they conceded it in the closing statement. But then that mental disease or defect, beyond the reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to prove that it did not interfere with her ability to see right and wrong, or understand the quality of what she did, or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. To me, that reasonable doubt being on the prosecution, there's just no way that they're gonna be able to do that. And I think the mistrial today proved that as well, considering it was 11 to 1 But those are my thoughts.

Billy (1:50)

I completely agree with that. Guys, my name is Billy. Nice to meet you guys. I'm from Massachusetts, so I am close to home from this. Yeah, a little bit. So my contention on the matter, and I'm a free thinker. I like to just think critically. My contention on the matter is this case is not about if she did it or not. She did it. They're saying that she did it. It's what was her mental capacity at the time? Did she pass that threshold of criminal insanity? And it's the prosecution's job, not the defense's job, to prove that burden and almost at the end of the trial before even went to deliberations, I think Kevin even applied for a requirement for, I forget what it was called, but prosecution didn't even fail to even prove the standard of that. So this, it almost didn't even go to deliberations almost. So I think they didn't prove the burden of proof. I think after finding out today, 11-01, the jury agreed.

And that alone is why, I'm saying she did it, I think she did it, but let her the law, not guilty, criminal in Seattle, yes.

Matt Moyer (2:51)

My name is Matt Moyer. I'm an injury lawyer in Chicago, former state and federal prosecutor. I believe that this is actually a much closer case than people are making it out to be. I can kind of see why there are 11 people hung up and I can also of course see why one person thought she was guilty because I believe she is guilty under the law in Massachusetts. I think in this case, Lindsay Clancy formerly was not mentally ill or suffering really from any sort of postpartum depression or other kind of pre-existing depression. I think she had minor mental health issues before, but something was triggered within her brain with her child, Callan, her youngest child, that it fundamentally changed who she was.

I think she was laboring under an immense weight of postpartum depression, and that was very, very tormenting to her. I do believe that at times she wanted to get better. I believe that this was something that I think she didn't want to happen. She did not want to fall down this slippery slope, but she did.

When the incident was happening, I believe that she was aware of what she was doing, and that's basically the test. Can you conform your actions to the law? Can you tell right from wrong? Or by reason of mental defect, can you not? I see too much planning and too much thought. She's less in the category of criminally insane, more in the category of very rare batch of people across time who have believed that they need to relieve themselves of living, and they need to take their children with them because it's too hard for them to bear the idea of their children being on the earth with them. So I have sympathy towards people with postpartum depression, and I have some sympathy towards Lindsay, although I'm tapped out of sympathy thinking about the horror that this was for her children, and for Patrick. And so I do think she's guilty based on Massachusetts law, and what it tells us about when a person is insane and when they're not.