Friends, this week will likely bring us the resolution in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. This space has been as factual and agnostic on the outcome as possible. But now that it has gone to the jury… it’s time to take a position.
Now, the fact that a guilty verdict feels more like justice doesn’t mean it will go that way. As we’ve discussed, Massachusetts (ludicrously) puts the burden on the government to prove a defendant claiming insanity is actually sane. A hung jury is also always a possibility.
But joining us again on the Nightwatch this week is John DePetro, New England crime reporter, who has been in court for the whole trial. He’s watched the jurors, the judge, and Lindsay herself. He’s also seen defense attorney Kevin Reddington in action for years, and gives us some inside baseball on the man (including that he apparently threatened to punch a Fox reporter!).
John, whose excellent and informed crime reporting can be found online here, joined us to give final thoughts before we get a resolution in the case—whatever it may be.
So click here to join us.
An insanity defense must explain the evidence, not provide a fog thick enough to conceal its contradictions. Paul Mauro followed the Lindsay Clancy trial without declaring a preferred outcome until the record closed, and his conclusion now carries weight because it emerged after the testimony rather than before it. The jury must apply Massachusetts law, including the prosecution’s burden on criminal responsibility, but that burden does not require jurors to suspend common sense when the defense narrative collides with the established facts. If the inconsistencies Mauro identifies cannot be reconciled with genuine legal insanity, a guilty verdict is not vengeance. It is the judgment the evidence demands.
totally