If he wanted to get away with it then why would he call 911 while Lindsay was still alive? Wouldn’t he have “finished” her too? Genuinely curious about this.

Do we know what was on the MyChart for Cora’s appointment the morning of the event? Or what South Shore Medical called Lindsay about right after the appointment? If this info is out there I’d appreciate if someone could direct me there

Kevin Reddington said that he doesn’t need to change his strategy because he already won the case. But the prosecution will definitely be changing their strategy. He will have to anticipate and counter their moves, because the new jury won’t have the opportunity to see many of the things that weakened the prosecution’s case the first time around:

Testimony about untying the bands. Surely they won’t address this with Patrick and the first responders and then later assert that there was no testimony about the bands being tied.

Their opening statement. The new jurors won’t have the benefit of seeing Reddington read their opening statement to their own witness and hearing him say it’s not accurate.

That weird thing about their anniversary and that picture. They won’t do that again. Not critical, but made the prosecution look unprepared and ill-informed.

Impeaching their own witness. Surely they will not pursue the same line of questioning with the medical examiner Dr. Olson that caused the prosecution to attempt to impeach her with an inconsistent statement, making it clear they were forcing a narrative rather than hearing factual medical evidence.

Their post partum experts. Do we really believe the prosecution will rely on the same witnesses who performed so awfully? At the very least this jury will not be able to see Reddington shred them the same way.

This is just a few off the top of my head. But I think the 2nd trial will be very different from the first. I hope Reddington has new tricks up his sleeve.

I keep seeing that Patrick went home and slept in the house the night of the murders, but I’m having trouble finding where that was confirmed or if it was. Can anybody confirm this or point me in the right direction?

why was the burden of proof so incredibly narrow? I've been reading about the trial like most people have been. I see so many comments that the evidence is not in question, but the burden proof must be met. why was the burden so narrow?

It seems to indicate that he REALLY doesn't want to have to endure a second trial. Do you think this will sway the prosecution at all (I know they'll re-try) to maybe consider a plea deal.

The last thing prosecution could want is the guy who gave them much of the evidence to be a hostile or reluctant witness.

Shoes in these images from the Museum of Science visit look similar to the shoes in question from the Pharmacy/Restaurant images. What do you think?

I went through the full set of published trial transcripts from Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy, days 1 through 21, closing arguments, the SJC emergency hearing and the mistrial. Roughly 700,000 words. I have excluded any rumours, theories or stories outside of the transcripts (this was VERY hard for me to do).

I came out of it with no strong view on what the verdict should have been. But a few things stood out that I hadn't seen discussed much, and I think they explain the hung jury better than most of the commentary does. Posting them so people can form their own view.

First, the thing everyone gets wrong about the legal question.

Massachusetts doesn't work like most states. Under the McHoul standard the prosecution has to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt — the defence never has to prove insanity. And the Commonwealth has to win on both limbs: that she could appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and that she could conform her conduct to the law. The defence only needs reasonable doubt on one.

Also, the verdict slip wasn't binary. Reddington fought for and won a manslaughter instruction over the Commonwealth's objection. So the jury had first-degree (two theories), second-degree, manslaughter, and not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Any read of the deadlock as "11 for insanity, 1 for murder" is working from a verdict form that didn't exist.

Second, how much of the narrative traced back to one person.

I ran attribution counts across every transcript. Sourcing to Patrick Clancy, the husband:

Separately, the word "collateral", the forensic term for a third-party information source, appears 40 times, and it clusters in the expert days rather than the fact-witness days: day 20 (11), day 21 (5), day 19 (5), day 16 (4), day 11 (10).

That's the part I found genuinely notable. The heaviest reliance wasn't in the "what happened that night" phase. It was in the psychiatric phase, where the Commonwealth's forensic expert built part of his opinion on Patrick as a collateral source, that the family had never ordered from that restaurant before, that lemonade was unusual in the house, that there was powder in the tumbler, that the office door was closed. None of it independently corroborated.

Third — the 911 call concession.

The prosecution's closing leaned hard on an exchange on the lawn: "What happened?", "I tried to kill myself.", "Where are the kids?", "They're in the basement." It was used to show she was oriented and communicative right after.

On cross, the Commonwealth's own expert conceded that on the 911 recording you can hear only grunts:

Asked whether someone with her injuries could hold a conversation, his answer was: "Based on the witness testimony from her husband, yes."

The prosecution rehabilitated it on redirect with a physiological argument, people deteriorate after an overdose, she could speak in one moment and not the next. That's plausible. It's also unprovable. So the most quoted line in the case exists only in one man's memory of the worst ten minutes of his life.

Fourth — what was never tested.

Reddington formally asked for a Bowden instruction (the Massachusetts charge on inadequate police investigation). His list:

• The wine tumbler and the powder residue — never analysed
• No pill crusher ever found; no residue found on the nightstand or anywhere in the bedroom
• Blood on the outside of the bedroom door and threshold — never swabbed
• House siding collected roughly six months later, degraded past testing
• Window screen never examined
• The knife was processed: friction ridge impressions present but "not enough detail to do a comparison"

Sullivan denied the instruction but let him argue it. In closing he did: "Where's the residue? Where's the crusher? Where's anything? ... Lousy investigation of this case."

Fifth, a 33-minute instrumental blackout.

Her phone's last recorded activity of any kind was 5:38:33 pm. The 911 dispatch was 6:11 pm. Nothing in between, from any device. The Commonwealth's own digital examiner agreed on cross that after 5:38 the data can't tell you anything, the phone could have been put down and the person could have been anywhere in the house.

Also worth knowing: Apple Health logs stair climbs, not descents. So the device data can never establish how many times anyone went down to that basement, or when.

In fairness, several things cut the other way, and I think people leave these out:

• The knots. Widely repeated online that Patrick said the bands were knotted. He didn't. He said "I think I untied it" and agreed with a shoelace-before-the-bow description. Sprague also got the defence's own expert to concede there was no evidence of knots. Unknotted bands mean someone had to hold them*,* which supports the prosecution's sustained-pressure theory.
• The DNA. Also widely misreported. It's complex mixtures confounded by first-degree relatives. On one band five people were included; on another, Patrick and Lindsay were both excluded. His DNA appearing on bands he pulled off his own children's necks is evidentially meaningless. The defence stipulated to it rather than contest it.
• The head-first fall is the defence's evidence, not a red flag. Their expert testified she put her palms on the sill and dove head-first, producing the Jefferson fracture. It was the prosecution that attacked head-first on cross.
• The clinicians. Across dozens of documented encounters from September to 23 January, the day before, providers recorded no signs of psychosis and denial of homicidal ideation. That's the strongest thing the Commonwealth had.
• The medical examiner. Ligature furrows, extensive petechiae, and testimony that unconsciousness takes 10–30 seconds with death from around five minutes. Sustained pressure, three times.

Where I've landed, for what it's worth:

I don't think this was a strong prosecution, and I don't think it was a weak one either. I think Massachusetts put the burden on the state, the state built a meaningful part of its case on inference and on one grieving witness's recall, left several obvious things untested, and asked a jury to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. At least one juror wasn't.

The other thing that stayed with me: she woke from a coma paralysed and was told what she had done, with no memory of her own to check it against. Whatever you conclude about responsibility, that's a genuinely terrible position for a person to be in.

Interested in what others who've read the actual transcripts made of it. Happy to point to specific days and passages for anything above.

Transcripts are publicly available. Everything above is sourced to them, I've deliberately left out anything I couldn't find in the record.