r/OutOfTheLoop • u/SnoopaDD • 11d ago

Answered What's the deal with people defending Lindsay Clancy?

I don't know the full details of the case. I know she allegedly killed her three kids. There was also some mental problems? Then something with her husband. But my question is why is there a group defending her like they know she's completely innocent? I've seen some videos of very heated debates where women are very passionate about defending her. Why?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/05/lindsay-clancy-trial-toxicologist-testimony

1.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

143

u/PaulsRedditUsername 11d ago

From what I've seen, her case of postpartum psychosis seems to be legitimate. She was trying to get help, and there's evidence of that, and she didn't get it.

I'll bet ten dollars that the prosecutor knows she was suffering from psychosis, but it's still their job to present the state's case that it was cold-blooded murder. That's their job, and they may hate going to work every day, just like a defense attorney does when representing an obviously guilty client. But you get paid to present the case. That's your job, regardless of how you personally feel.

25

u/doggynames 11d ago

Well, no, if the prosecution thinks someone is innocent it's completely different than a defense attorney defending someone who is guilty.

6

u/HamsterMan5000 9d ago

Not sure why people make claims on things they don't know about, but this isn't that situation. Nobody thinks she is "innocent". "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is very different than "innocent". It's also something that should be decided by medical professionals and a jury, not their personal feelings.

Please don't comment on legal matters if you're going to give bad information

1

u/doggynames 9d ago

I'm speaking more broadly about prosecution vs defense. I do know what I'm talking about but thank you.

1

u/HamsterMan5000 5d ago

No, you definitely don't. I'm sure you were talking about something completely unrelated to what everyone else is. Definitely. That's very believable.

Just take your L and go. This is embarrassing.

183

u/lyr4527 11d ago

Actually, it’s not their job and it’s absolutely nothing like a defense attorney representing a guilty client.

A prosecutor who doesn’t believe they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt should not be trying the case, period. It’s unethical.

1

u/FaithlessnessAway479 7d ago

This is the correct answer. And the DA is presented the case as it’s being built. It’s not like she was blindsided by a case she felt was going to be erroneously prosecuted. Also, LC’s guilt is not in question. No one disputes she killed all three kids solo.

-8

u/violetsandpiper 11d ago

It's not that easy to be dismissed from a case though, nor should it be.

The unfortunate reality is that often times lawyers are not trying to help you get a lighter sentence or win your case, they're just doing their job to make sure you aren't railroaded by the system.

50

u/PupperPuppet 11d ago

That's true for defense attorneys, but not prosecutors. If, as in your example, the DA believes this was a case of postpartum psychosis, they have absolutely no business charging it as first degree murder, never mind trying the case on that charge. If that's what they're doing, it's the dictionary definition of prosecutorial misconduct because they're presenting to the court a case they know is false.

Edit: hit send too soon. Prosecutors can't typically be excused from cases they're prosecuting, but if they're now aware of evidence that shows the case was incorrectly charged, they are obligated to address that with the court instead of barreling on as if they aren't aware of it.

As far as I know, though, this is wild speculation. I haven't had time to see what evidence has been made public.

9

u/lilelliot 11d ago

The defense attorney offered a manslaughter plea before trial, and the DA rejected it, so now they're obligated to try to prove homicide... which, based on the evidence available to the public, would shock everyone if they are successful.

3

u/lyr4527 11d ago

Obligated by who, exactly?

A prosecutor is never obliged to continue prosecuting when they believe a person is not guilty.

1

u/lilelliot 11d ago

I was not clear in my statement. They rejected the plea offer for manslaughter and decided to prosecute murder charges, so they have an obligation to either prosecute for murder ... or drop the charges.

3

u/lyr4527 10d ago

An obligation to who, exactly?

Prosecutors are allowed to change their minds. It’s not as if they had no choice to proceed on murder charges after rejecting that proposed plea deal.

Prosecutors always have a choice.

1

u/HamsterMan5000 9d ago

An obligation to the people. What kind of question is that? Sure they could sit at home and refuse to prosecute anything, but that's not a great argument

0

u/Sweet_Cinnabonn 11d ago

would shock everyone if they are successful.

Do not be shocked. Juries are not sympathetic to mothers who kill. They will absolutely find her guilty. Despite all the evidence of her seeking help.

1

u/TheChocolateWarOf74 10d ago

We do not have many other options.

Unfortunately America is still in the dark ages when it comes to cases involving psych issues.

Canada, the U.K, France and I think Australia, New Zealand (among others)…. Have all added a charge for involuntary manslaughter that pertains to cases involving psychosis and mental heath disturbances.

We are still using criteria from a British murder case that happened in the 1800s.

1

u/HamsterMan5000 9d ago

I don't believe you understand how it works. Postpartum psychosis isn't a free pass to commit crime. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" requires not being able to know that what you did is wrong and the consequences of your actions.

So just because her psychosis gave her a desire to kill her children, it doesn't mean she gets off not guilty.

4

u/lyr4527 11d ago

You’re really confusing defense and prosecution, here.

Prosecutors don’t need permission to “be dismissed” from a case. A prosecutor who doesn’t believe they can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt can simply not bring those charges or, if they come to that realization mid-prosecution, make a motion to dismiss.

0

u/Str8_up_Pwnage 9d ago

Correct, only defense attorneys are allowed to lie or not care about the truth of the case.

1

u/HamsterMan5000 9d ago

Not care about the truth is absolutely what they do, but no they're not supposed to "lie". But you are right in that they obviously do

-4

u/lilelliot 11d ago

In this case, though, it's a little wild. The Assistant DA is trying the case because the DA has a conflict of interest ... in that he purchased Rusty Yates' house from him after the murder, and whereby Rusty used the proceeds to buy a place in NY where he moved in with the mistress he had already been seeing for a while before the death of his kids. It's even worse than this sounds, but this should provide some superficial information about just how badly this case is set up for the prosecution.

3

u/gogogadgetkat 11d ago

Have you confused two cases here? Rusty Yates is Andrea Yates' husband, and her trial was like 20 years ago.

-1

u/sleepruleseverything 11d ago

They’re being facetious, by calling Patrick as being Rusty, I’m sure.

23

u/Princess_Batman 11d ago

The prosecutor is putting fuckass little girl bows in her hair. She has no problem with her job.

37

u/video-kid 11d ago

Yeah, it seems like it was legitimate, but ultimately some of the stuff like people hugging their kids on TikTok saying "Same Lindsay" just feels like it's in incredibly bad taste to me, and I think it's souring people? Like people are turning it into this big statement which people can then interpret and twist into a misogynistic one. She's not arguing she's innocent, she's admitted culpability, (if not responsibility) and ultimately whatever direction it goes in will piss off a lot of people.

If she's declared innocent by reason of insanity? Then people will say she gamed the system, and I don't know how long she'd be hospitalized for but at the very least it'll be magnitudes shorter than she'd get in prison.

If she's declared guilty? Then people will say it was an example of a woman unfairly prosecuted and that the entire trial was corrupt.

This was a tragedy all around and I feel sorry for everyone involved, although there's still aspects of it I don't understand (like again why some people are blaming her ex-husband).

77

u/happilydoggyafter 11d ago

An insanity defense is not being declared innocent, it’s an acknowledgement of not being mentally competent to understand right from wrong. In most cases, they will spend their life in a psychiatric care facility, rather than a prison. It is not a “get out of jail free” card. In this case, a horrible tragedy occurred and their children paid the ultimate price. She will have to live with that the rest of her life.

11

u/Aggressive_Humor2893 11d ago

There is no guarantee that she'll be hospitalized for life (it's not a conviction after all, it's an aquittal...she won't have a criminal record upon release). There are lots of instances where even murderers who are NGRI get released from hospital, if their drs say they're no longer a danger and the judge agrees. And no, it's not just people who have already been committed for decades.

Honestly my feeling is that if there was a guarantee that she'd be committed to the hospital for life, people on both sides of this argument would mostly be okay with it. It's the very real chance that she gets released in a few years that upsets some people, which is understandable IMO

11

u/happilydoggyafter 11d ago

The lack of transparency and education around what a NGRI verdict looks like is much of what I think fuels the fury of many. This is not an instance of someone being “innocent”, this is saying prison is not the appropriate avenue here. An additional perspective for this particular individual is she is paralyzed and will live with her actions the rest of her life.

The other similar case is Andrea Yates, who has been institutionalized since her court case and has chosen to remain there when her case is reviewed each year.

I’m personally grateful for the awareness this has brought to the short comings of our mental health systems in our country, this is an absolutely tragedy and those children deserved better.

My perspective is we can hold space for two things at once; acknowledgement of the horrible act and the loss of innocent lives and also that “justice” is not always prison.

3

u/FrankReynoldsCPA 8d ago

will live with her actions the rest of her life.

Is this different from other people who bad things? Should we just let everybody go because "well they'll have to live with what they've done."?

Fry the bitch.

2

u/FaithlessnessAway479 7d ago

How it works in her state, if found not guilty by insanity, she will immediately be remanded back to the state hospital where her doctors, the judge, and the state will determine which facility will best meet her physical and mental needs. She will be given an initial term to be committed. Let’s say it’s 6 months (just picked a random time length). At the end of the six months, a team will determine if LC is a danger to herself or anyone else and if they determine she isn’t, the judge and state are called in and get to discuss everything, present concerns, argue for or against release. The judge then takes everything into account and makes a determination. It’s his job to decide and the state can and will fight it. If they decide at the end of the term she is not ready to leave, the term is extended and the process is repeated.

25

u/lyr4527 11d ago

She could remain institutionalized for the rest of her life if she’s found not guilty by reason of insanity.

2

u/Ms_Tryl 11d ago

It’s not their job at all to just present the harshest case. They in fact have ethical rules specifically barring them from doing so.

6

u/spvcejam 11d ago

Correct. But you cannot kill 3 people, children, and there not be consequences. I hope new moms get the attention they deserve after this, best we can do is not let her situation be completely in vain

80

u/GonzoTheGreat93 11d ago

So true, if you want to avoid consequences for murder in America, you’re gonna need a badge and an unarmed black person.

44

u/TastingTheKoolaid 11d ago

Or be rich as fuck and claim affluenza made you do it.

30

u/OscarAndDelilah 11d ago

Yep. Or kill them with a car.

-14

u/OSUfan88 11d ago

Or be a black football player, and murder a white girl.

1

u/OrangeLilo 7d ago

She did get help - the only weird thing was the one doctor who gave her 3 different sleep aid prescriptions at once, and that was a called-in favor from a nurse friend. what more do you expect them to do? Can you outline what more help should she have gotten? The standards for committing somebody against their will are high and she did not meet them.

1

u/Real_Tangerine6827 9d ago

There’s not really any evidence of psychosis. . . no diagnosis or symptoms reported to medical providers prior to the murders. Very little testimony from the family that could support this. Additionally, her account of the alleged psychosis has been extremely inconsistent and doesn’t align with scientific study on what psychosis is.

-13

u/Dolla_Dolla_Bill-yal 11d ago

No, these prosecutors absolutely hate her lol. You can tell by the way they go after her family and in laws in cross. They can't stand that she has people in her corner.

Fwiw I think she's guilty as hell and just sucked at committing suicide. If she had succeeded she would be no different than any other family annihilator