Lindsay Clancy defence: There's no proof she did it
· Toronto Sun
See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source
Lindsay Clancy, the mother who murdered her three children and whose case ended in a mistrial, was back in court on Tuesday — and this time, her defence lawyer says there’s no proof she did it.
Visit betsport24.es for more information.
In a stunning turn, Clancy’s defence attorney, Kevin Reddington, told a Plymouth, Mass. court there’s no evidence to prove she killed her three children — after Clancy admitted to strangling them in the first trial, BBC reported. Reddington accused the police of having “no investigation” into the details of the case, before taking the court through evidence of self-harm after the children’s deaths.
“Where’s the evidence she did this?” said Reddington, who didn’t dispute Clancy killed her children in her first trial. “This entire case is based on speculation.”
Tuesday’s court hearing was in part to determine whether there would be a retrial.
Mistrial
Clancy was charged with strangling her three young children to death in 2023. In that trial, Clancy murdering her children wasn’t up for debate. The case ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4, when Michael Desronvil, known as the lone holdout juror, wouldn’t acquiesce to the other 11 jurors who wanted to find Clancy not criminally responsible for killing her children due to postpartum psychosis. Desronvil made a public statement Tuesday shortly before Clancy appeared in court.
Forget about everything: Defence
Reddington went on to argue a jury could infer there was reasonable doubt due to the police’s failure to adequately investigate.
“In this case, there was no investigation,” he says. “They just immediately assumed this woman was guilty,” adding the government, “ comes into this courtroom and says that the reason that she killed these kids is that she was sick of being a mother.
“ Forget about the law, forget about the motions, forget about everything. Talked by human beings,” Reddington went on. “Why would this woman, who the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally was a nurse, a mother, a friend, did nothing wrong in her life… Why would she kill those three children?”
Prosecution: We met burden of proof
Prosecution attorney Shanan Buckingham said Clancy’s defence is only contesting the evidence now, and state prosecutors produced a chapter and account of Clancy in a healthy mental state at the time of the murders.
“The Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) met its burden,” she said.
Buckingham added that using the lack of criminal responsibility defence only comes into effect when the defence raises it, and once it does, the Commonwealth must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant didn’t lack criminal responsibility, reminding the court that mental disease has no clear definition.
She went on to argue that though the defence wants to argue Clancy was suffering from psychosis, there was indeed a motive in this case.
Coming up
Another hearing is set for Nov. 2, when Judge William Sullivan will hear arguments for Clancy’s motion to dismiss the case due to double jeopardy — a legal defence that prevents a person from being tried twice for the same crime after a previous acquittal or conviction — as well as the defence’s motion to further question Desronvil.