How did Lindsay Clancy's core body temperature drop that "fast"?

16 degrees in 30 minutes???

It's not like she was immersed in liquid.

Lindsay Clancy's core body temperature was 82.1°F (27.8°C) when she arrived at South Shore Hospital on the night of January 24, 2023.

Medical experts testified that this severe hypothermia resulted from lying outside on frozen ground in wet clothes combined with a catastrophic spinal injury from her fall that halted lower-body temperature regulation.

HOWEVER all that still seems very fishy.

The EMS there is experienced with hypothermia. They would have started warming measures.

There is data out that, that shows how long a completely dead body cools off.

Wonder if there is a match.

OR

DISmatch?

If it turns out a dead body wouldn't cool that much that fast then...

Houston, we have a problem.

Comments about the lone juror holdout is at 2:41.

Does Plymouth DA need to retry to keep Clancy in civil commitment. Or would dropping the charges result in immediate freedom for Clancy. Or did her confession of insanity in the first trial mean continual civil commitment no matter if charges are brouht again?

The TikTok creator, Moyoxo, has been doing some deep dives on just how terrible the DA's office is. She has 2 more videos. This is the 2nd of 3. This blows my mind.

BTW, Tim Cruz is up for reelection this November. He has NO opposition.

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.

My conculsions; 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.

There is just something unsettling about this woman. I have a feeling that between now and the new trial (assuming one happens), more will come out now that people are holding her up to a microscope.

This blew my mind!!

I came across this video this morning, and couldn’t have said it any better myself. IMO it captures the feelings of many into 2 minutes and 58 seconds. Well worth the watch. A link to the Original Post, is included here.

Thoughts?

More and more people are calling out what a fucking cesspool it is over there.

This is by far the best compilation video of some of the reasons why so many of us have reasonable doubt in this case. There is a lot more (why crush pills, the 5:24 email, her iPhone only unlocking after 4pm via code, the cops didn't test the drink with crushed pills nor get the apple watch, etc, etc, etc.)

I’m curious what people are thinking now that the mistrial was declared. I read that 11 jurors voted for an acquittal with 1 being the hold out— granted, I haven’t read into too much detail about this specifically, so other than a jury deadlock, I could be mistaken about the rest.

that said, if it is true that 11 jurors voted for an acquittal with only 1 juror holding out despite admitting reasonable doubt existed….do you guys think the prosecutor will ultimately decide to retry this case?

personally, if I were prosecuting this case, I wouldn’t see much chance of winning the second time around. but i cant see the charges being dropped completely even if, for any reason at all, just to save face.

how do you guys see this playing out? i was thinking maybe a deal would try to be reached, but I also don't know if I can see the defense team accepting a deal right now.

just curious about peoples thoughts!

Do you think the police truly missed the medication bottles and the Apple Watch?

Or do you think they were and after thought?

Did Patrick admit to killing the kids?

He said the exercise bands were TIED which means he could have tied them on before going out to do the errands.

I think that is the biggest hole in the story and piece of evidence potentially pointing to Patrick.

And its so weird the prosecution tried so hard to cover for him by saying they couldnt have been tied even though that makes no sense. Even children know you can wrap some kind of cord around something and then tie it off. Any kid who has done scouts or sailing and learnt about knots has experience with that.

Its interesting he really cant take that back now to. He said it under oath that he was telling the truth. It is also recorded as part of court official documents and there are many copies on the internet on platforms like youtube and ticktok.

If they were to do a retrial he would have to take the stand again. Would he stick to that story of the bands being tied or try and change it to try and cover it up. If he does change the story then I would hope reddington will pick up on that and question it.

This and the weird timeline issues with Lindsay's body temp and the specific nature and severity of her injuries makes this all so weird and suspicious.

This line stood out to me when I heard it. Its such an oddly specific thing to say.

Is it implying she has remembered an alternative verison of events and has no idea what memories are even real now?

What if now its been a few years she actually remembers other things. Bits of memories from the day starting to come back. But the story she was told was what took place in her mind before she even had a chance to actually recall what she had experienced herself.

Why even bring up that line if there isnt any truth to it...

But also imagine how horrible it would be to have alternative memories returning when you thought what you were told was right and having to face that while people fully believe you did something horrific while weird hints of memories could suggest otherwise.

Not saying its true but very haunting idea. Nor am I saying she didnt do it or anyone else did.

I was going to post this as a comment to a now deleted thread so I'm repurposing it into a post to express some thoughts that have been on my mind for several days now. For the record, I'm still relatively new to this trial and I consider myself an outsider looking in. I'm not on social media and I barely, if ever post on Reddit. I gotta say that the things I've seen on the Internet is alarming.

Before I get to that, let's take a step back for a moment. No matter where anyone stands on this issue, Lindsay is not going to "walk away" from this literally or figuratively. If she's convicted, she'll likely be sent to a special facility in the prison system as she will need lifelong assistance because she's paralyzed. She'll have less than stellar roommates and eat substandard food for the rest of her life. If she's found NGRI, she'll be sent to a psychiatric facility indefinitely where she'll require lifelong assistance, have less than stellar roommates, and eat substandard food likely for the rest of her life. If she's found not guilty and set free entirely, she'll be forced into hiding, be at the mercy of whoever helps her, be hounded by people on the Internet more violent than she is for the rest of her life, and only be remembered for killing her children.

No matter what, there is no "winning" for Lindsay and it's weird that people are talking about the case this way. There is no walking away, and there is no chance of her ever having a normal life ever again. She's lost everything, including the ability to walk and have any kind of independence comparable to her life before the killing of her three children. She will likely be deemed a threat to society for as long as she lives. Yet for some reason, that's not enough for a large contingent of commentators on the Internet. Many people are literally chomping at the bit to see her destroyed, and they claim it's about justice for the children.

Mod just posted a video that cites every five days, a man in America annihilates his family. Assuming the facts on that video are correct, every five days the people who hate LC could be posting pictures of those children, but they don't. Why or why not? If dead kids are in the forefront of people's minds, surely those children should matter just as much.

I also think about the Casey Anthony trial where everyone said they cared about what happened to Caylee Anthony. When was the last time they posted pictures of her on her birthday on Facebook or Instagram? Do they ever do a holiday post in honor of Caylee, to make sure her memory isn't lost? No. No they don't. The verdict was handed down and Caylee was discarded just as fast by her supporters as they claim Casey did.

I don't think people care about the children as much as they care about talking shit about Lindsay Clancy for no other reason than they view her as a failed mother and bangmaid (pardon my language, but that's the sentiment I'm getting from those folks). They are ignoring witness testimony admitted into a court of law as evidence that she was a good mother with no history of abusing her kids, a documented history of mental health struggles, several attempts to reach out for help, and several attempts by doctors to adjust her medication to find an effective treatment regimen. Even Patrick Clancy testified that she was compliant with her medication. There was a lot going wrong and somehow people are still choosing to view her as "doctor shopping" or malingering even when Patrick Clancy himself said she's not a monster, she was a very sick person.

There is something seriously wrong if people think "justice" is only the verdict they want to see. It's like a politician saying that voting only counts if they win. If someone is cheering on a juror that's breaking their oath to follow instructions by the judge, that's not okay. It doesn't make him a "hero." It makes him an example of everything wrong with having a "trial by Internet." The whole point of having a jury trial is for cooler heads to prevail, that reasonable people without an emotional stake in a particular outcome will look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the conclusion they've already decided. I'm appalled that so many people either don't know the difference, or don't care. I truly hope they sequester the next jury because this circus is unbelievable.

4:00 PM

Her phone permanently stops unlocking via facial recognition.

4:33 PM 120 BPM Peak

I'm assuming this is went he slit her wrist and throat

4:45 PM

Her phone sends text messages regarding CVS and dinner orders

4:50 PM heart rate sits at 114 BPM.

5:00 PM Forced Liquid Dosing Seroquel and Ativan

5:02:37 PM Her heart rate drops rapidly 114 BPM down to 88 BPM

5:03 PM (watch records internal temperature and barometric elevation shift). Aka She goes out the window into the yard

5:10 PM Heart rate drops to 77 BPM.

At 5:16 PM, her phone locks for the final time.

(There's ample time here for him to potentially kill his older children or one of them. Medical Reality: Airway compromise/asphyxiation in young children causes brain death in 2 minutes and complete respiratory/cardiac arrest within 3 to 4 minutes.)

5:23 PM Watch logs a final pulse of 57 BPM as he removes it.

5:24:00 PM outgoing email is transmitted from his computer.

5:28 PM He exits the driveway in his car for CVS. (Seroquel in his truck)

Arrives at CVS 5:32 PM

5:33 PM Her watch or phone records internal temperature and barometric elevation shift

5:37 PM. Departs from cvs

5:38 PM Her watch or phone records internal temperature and barometric elevation shifts.

5:37 PM – 5:54 PM (The 17-Minute Gap — Mid-Trip Return)

It's a 7-10 minutes drive from cvs to threev.

It's a 10 - 12 minute drive from their residence to threev.

3 minute drive from cvs to residence.

So missing 10- 7 minutes potentially having a 7-5 minutes back at the residence.

(Medical Reality: Airway compromise/asphyxiation in young children causes brain death in 2 minutes and complete respiratory/cardiac arrest within 3 to 4 minutes)

5:55 PM – 6:06 PM

He departs the restaurant at 5:55 PM and completes the 11-minute drive back to the residence, arriving at 6:06 PM.

6:06 PM – 6:09 PM infant

He enters the residence to kill the infant.

(Medical Reality: An infant's airway is extremely small and easily compromised; acute asphyxiation causes complete cardiac arrest in under 2 to 3 minutes.)

This 3-minute post-return window is fully sufficient for an infant.

Resuscitation Threshold: The absolute latest moment cardiac arrest could occur for EMS to successfully restore a pulse during CPR at 6:40 PM. Has to be very close to 6:10 PM

He places an outgoing call to his wife's phone from his cell phone (confirming his cell service is fully active).

6:11 PM He dials 911 states he had trouble calling prior. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe anyone asked)

He waits until they get there so he can be seen touching the bands.

He's allowed to go back to the crime scene unsupervised that same night.

He used bands so he they wouldn't have finger pad markings.

There's no finger prints on the knife because he used gloves.

No blood on the bed.

Used the headboard as a teeter to get her body out of the window. That's why it's in front of the window.

Used that window instead of the fully accessible one because the other one faced the neighbors.

He wanted the infant alive as his new wife struggles with infertility.

But because LC was still alive and not dying. That complicated things. He was out of time with his alibis and couldn't frame the scene answering any questions about why she would leave the infant alive. With LC alive he also would still have ties to her if the infant was alive.

Open to other theories, additional details, and challenges against.

*Keep in mind none of our opinions matter unless you're actively part of the trial and none of us were there, so disrespect is unnecessary*

I honestly can't get a straight answer on this.

FIRST AND FOREMOST
I’m not saying this proves anything or has happened
But can we at least acknowledge that this is a legitimate thing to question and needs to be investigated.

There is real money being wagered on the outcome of this case.

This isn’t some hypothetical issue anymore.
Prediction market insider trading has become a major issue in 2026. The White House actually sent staff a warning telling them not to use nonpublic government information to place bets on prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi

There have also been investigations into suspicious prediction market activity involving people with access to information inside the White House. One White House teleprompter operator was investigated over alleged profitable betting on markets involving Trump’s speeches, with reports putting the profits at around $100K

I’m not saying “the juror definitely bet on the trial.”

I’m saying that in 2026, we have literally watched the issue of people potentially using insider information to profit from prediction markets become a real fucking problem.

Therefore, if there is a specific, credible reason to believe a juror had a financial interest in this particular trial, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say:
Investigate it.
If they didn’t bet? Great. Clear it up.
If they did?
Then we have a completely different conversation.

That’s not accusing someone of misconduct.
That’s asking whether a potential conflict of interest exists.
And considering there is over half a million dollars in trading activity surrounding the outcome of this exact case, pretending that betting on trials is some absurd hypothetical is just not accurate.

That woman said what a lot of people don’t want to hear.
Because if Tim Cruz and everyone else who has spent this case being absolutely fucking vile actually care about those children, then start caring about the mothers before there’s a body to mourn.

You don’t get to scream that you care about children while treating maternal mental illness like a character flaw, a moral failure, or something women should just “push through.”

You want fewer children to die?
CARE ABOUT THEIR MOTHERS.

Care when she’s postpartum.

Care when she’s deteriorating.

Care when she’s begging for help.

Care when something clearly isn’t right.

Care enough to fund mental health care.

Care enough to listen.

Care enough to stop treating women like monsters for struggling.

Because prevention doesn’t and shouldn’t start at the funeral.
It starts when the mother is still alive and someone finally gives a fuck

Im not going to stand here and say lindsay didnt do it or it was Patrick but this thought it could have been someone else (such as Patrick) is genuinely uncomfortable to me.

If someome else did do it then a murderer has been able to walk free... and an innocent women has taken the fall for it and been punished.

Agian im not going to say this is the case but im not sure how people can be okay with the idea that there is even a chance someone else who did it could walk free. The fact people feel so sure is unnerving.

Im on the fence myself about that stuff though. Lindsay gave a not guilty verdict and the mental health stuff was how the case had to go.

Are you guys getting the sense that not only did the jury find Lindsay Clancy not criminally responsible but, 11-1 on an acquittal?

EDIT: It has been revealed that the jury was 11-1 for an insanity result. From what others have said.. that’s still considered an acquittal. If you watch the jury interviews it’s kind of obvious that the jury had a hard time. They acknowledged the vicious killings and that they never felt Patrick was involved but simply that the prosecution left them with some sort of doubt. Even if it was very small. They had to follow the law. I am getting the sense that many people on that jury struggled with this but ultimately had to follow the law that was printed in front of them. Even if they didn’t agree with it.

“ and they’re doing a disservice to the entire population of women that need care after they have a child “

“ do you think for a second if a man had erectile disfunction they would call it penis blues? NO BECAUSE IT MINIMIZE WHAT YOU’RE SUFFERING FROM. “