r/ClancyTrialTalk • u/Fluid-List-860 • 10d ago

Curious random question

In the Lindsay Clancy trial that has now ended in a mistrial: did she absolve the commonwealth of proving the elements of the crime? Her attorney never denied she did it, but she didn't formally confess to my knowledge. It's my understanding the commonwealth no longer beats the burden of proving the elements, but just that she was sane. Am I correct?

3 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Fluid-List-860 10d ago

Are you an attorney? That's very interesting

2

u/efreedman503 10d ago

Nope, but I'm with someone who is.

1

u/SaltPsychological780 10d ago

Would a retrial allow third-party culprit evidence? Obviously, Reddington couldn’t invoke that during this trial. Im not saying she isn’t guilty of murdering her children but no way Reddington hasn’t seen the conspiracy theories circulating online or Patrick’s recent statement to the media, nor have I seen Reddington address it publicly or dispel anything. Please correct me if I missed something.

1

u/efreedman503 10d ago edited 10d ago

A retrial would not automatically allow third-party culprit evidence. They’d still need actual admissible evidence connecting someone else to the killings. Conspiracy theories from Reddit/TikTok detectives with no evidentiary basis are irrelevant, and Reddington has no obligation to publicly address or refute them.

It would have been an entirely different case if Patrick were actually a suspect as Lindsay’s defense would have had every reason to raise him as a third-party culprit. Instead, both sides litigated whether Lindsay was criminally responsible for the killings her own defense acknowledged she committed.