Linsey Clancy - Killed her children, but is it ‘murder’? Former police officer explains

Image for Google

The Lindsay Clancy case has captured the world. From true crime fanatics, diving into the case in real time, from people on social media screaming online that she is innocent. From man haters, claiming it MUST have been the husband, to cynics claiming that there is something greater going on. Mental health professionals, former police officers and social critics, all weighing in with their opinion.

The case is very similar to the case of Andrea Yates in 2001, who methodically drowned her five children in a bathtub in Houston, Texas. Initially convicted of capital murder in 2002, her conviction was overturned on appeal. In a 2006 retrial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity after evidence concerning her severe postpartum psychosis and other serious mental illness, and was committed to a psychiatric facility.

But then there are cases of men who have murdered their children and had their insanity pleas rejected. Namely Aaron Schaffhausen in 2012, who murdered his three daughters and was handed three life sentences. Timothy Jones Jr, in 2014, who murdered his five children and was sentenced to death, and more recently, Chad Doerman in 2023, who murdered his children, pleaded insanity, and was still criminally convicted.

So why, if there are these existing cases, is the Clancy case so contentious? Why are, in particular, women who appear to be getting their news from social media raising money to the value of one million dollars, and standing outside the courthouse with their children with placards, for a child murderer?

Although there is a hung jury in this case, and as such now a mistrial, what criteria must be fulfilled for someone to be found guilty of murder, or innocent by way of insanity?

Surely killing your children in the way she did is as clear-cut as it comes, right? Not quite.

Clancy was on trial for the alleged murder of her three young children. Clancy has admitted strangling her children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months, with exercise bands in the basement of her home, before trying to take her own life.

Clancy does not deny committing the murders, but rather states that she was suffering from a psychotic episode, with her defence also focusing on her mental health treatment and the medication she had been prescribed.

The prosecution rejected this and stated that she planned the killings, understood what she was doing and understood that it was wrong.

For most serious crimes such as murder, two elements generally need to be established.

For most serious crimes such as murder, two elements generally need to be established.

These are known as the ‘actus reus’ - the act of the crime itself.

And the ‘mens rea’ - the required mental state for the offence at the time the act occurred.

Example - Jimmy the criminal goes to the shop and steals a loaf of bread. He was mentally astute and committed the act of theft, intending to steal it.

Both fulfilled.

Jimmy the criminal, in full mental acuity, goes to the store and accidentally puts something in his pocket and forgets about it until he leaves. At the point he accidentally takes it, he has committed the act unknowingly, but does not have the required intention to steal it.

Jimmy is on the roof of his home, throwing bricks off the top during some construction work. He is fully mentally astute and believes no one is under the building. He throws the bricks off, and one collides with someone, killing them. Jimmy didn’t intend to hurt anyone, but was reckless in his handling of the bricks. Jimmy could therefore potentially be found guilty of manslaughter, depending on the level of recklessness and the circumstances. A specific intent to kill is not required for every form of murder under Massachusetts law.

FSo, if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Clancy killed the children, had the required intent, and either deliberately premeditated the killings or committed them with extreme atrocity or cruelty, and also prove that she was criminally responsible at the time, then we can have first-degree murder, as defined under Massachusetts law.

In relation to Clancy, and why this is such a controversial case, is the fact that although we have Clancy admitting she killed the children, and even if premeditation is determined, the trial largely hinged on whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that she had the mens rea at the time of the act being committed.

Given the history of similar cases involving men, I don’t see how this could be different. However, I, nor anyone else likely reading this, were inside the courtroom at the time. We don’t see and hear all of the evidence, so there is that to consider too. Also, from a parental perspective, even if I was suffering some form of mental breakdown and I harmed my children, I would walk myself into prison. Not claim insanity to avoid it.

This is certainly a trial that divides opinion, and we must always remember that the evidence heard in the courtroom is the evidence that is being deliberated on to determine guilt or lack of criminal responsibility. Not the online sleuths on TikTok and wider social media.

Right now, there has been a mistrial called due to 11 of the jurors finding Clancy was too mentally unwell at the time of the killings, and as such is not criminally responsible, and one juror maintaining that she is guilty of murder.

Now, we wait to see what happens next.

What will a retrial look like? Will there be new evidence? What precedent in law will this set if Clancy isn’t found criminally responsible? What bigger questions does this case ask in relation to mental health and the safety of children around caregivers with mental disorders? What about the pharmaceutical drugs Clancy was under? A large cocktail of them, in fact.

No matter what happens, there will be some who will dispute the verdict, and we must also remember that the real victims of this trial are the three young children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, who lost their lives in such a tragic way at the hands of their caregiver.