PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The jury is not permitted to disclose its deliberations, the opposite of a judge who is compelled to. That makes any rational response impossible. Thus there has been no finding that Clancy was criminally responsible, nor an acquittal on grounds of insanity. Heated arguments will continue, but will there be a retrial? Will it be a bench (judge alone) trial? Can there be a verdict to satisfy the public? Watch this space …""
(I will be watching! HL)
------------------------------------------
POST: "Lindsay Clancy: was she insane or is she evil?" published on his Wrongful Convictions report, on September 6, 2026.GIST: "Mother strangles her three kiddies. Why? Shocking, but was it murder? Far from straightforward, the complex Clancy case is left in limbo as one juror repeatedly dissents, triggering a retrial.
The world has been captivated by the case of Lindsay Clancy in Massachusetts, tried for the murder of her three young children by strangulation.
The central proposition of her defence was that she had developed bipolar disorder accompanied by postpartum psychosis.
The defence’s principal psychiatric expert, forensic psychiatrist Dr Philip Resnick, said that she was “frankly psychotic” when the killings occurred.
He diagnosed bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis and said she experienced command hallucinations — essentially, a male voice ordering her to kill her children and then herself.
The psychologist said she described feeling that she had no choice and that the voice told her that neither she nor her children would be safe unless she obeyed.
Massachusetts law does not make mental illness itself sufficient for an insanity acquittal.
Massachusetts law does not make mental illness itself sufficient for an insanity acquittal.
The crucial questions were whether, because of her mental disorder, Clancy appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct and was capable of conforming her behaviour to the law.
The defence psychiatrist said she could do neither at the time. Clancy is currently in a mental health facility.
The prosecution’s answer was essentially that mental illness and criminal responsibility are separate questions.
The prosecution’s answer was essentially that mental illness and criminal responsibility are separate questions.
It accepted that Clancy had significant psychological problems, but argued that she nevertheless understood what she was doing and deliberately organised the circumstances in which she killed the children.
Prosecutors pointed to evidence including her use of her husband’s absence, phone/GPS information and other conduct they said demonstrated planning and consciousness of what she was doing. (Does that prove she was also ‘conscious’ as we know it of doing wrong?)
And there were many other elements to the case, including Clancy jumping out of the window (which resulted in paralysis and her being wheelchair bound), medications by the dozen and the absence of any prior indications of hatred for her children.
The jury could not come to a unanimous verdict, with one juror repeatedly refusing to agree with the other 11.
And there were many other elements to the case, including Clancy jumping out of the window (which resulted in paralysis and her being wheelchair bound), medications by the dozen and the absence of any prior indications of hatred for her children.
The jury could not come to a unanimous verdict, with one juror repeatedly refusing to agree with the other 11.
(A bit like the famous 1957 movie written by Raginald Rose, 12 Angry Men. Look it up.) The judge declared it a mistrial.
Considerable controversy has followed, with passionate arguments for and against her guilt.
But the point that strike me above all else (and all else is indeed arguable ad infinitum) is how this case demonstrates the inability of the jury system to deal with cases where complex psycho-legal matters are central.
It brings to mind the observation of Welsh born mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell: The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
The jury is not permitted to disclose its deliberations, the opposite of a judge who is compelled to. That makes any rational response impossible.
Thus there has been no finding that Clancy was criminally responsible, nor an acquittal on grounds of insanity.
The jury is not permitted to disclose its deliberations, the opposite of a judge who is compelled to. That makes any rational response impossible.
Thus there has been no finding that Clancy was criminally responsible, nor an acquittal on grounds of insanity.
Heated arguments will continue, but will there be a retrial?
Will it be a bench (judge alone) trial? Can there be a verdict to satisfy the public? Watch this space …""
The entire post can be read at:
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/about/
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/about/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
