OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial Ends in Mistrial

16 sources · updated 2026-09-08
Left 38% Center 25% Right 38%
6 left · 4 center · 6 right

What happened

On January 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — in the basement of their Duxbury, Massachusetts home, then jumped from a bedroom window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed. Charged with three counts of first-degree murder, she pleaded not guilty and did not dispute the killings; attorney Kevin Reddington argued she lacked criminal responsibility because of postpartum psychosis, while Plymouth County prosecutors said she planned the deaths and was in control of her actions. After a multi-week trial, a jury of nine women and three men failed to reach a unanimous verdict following 38 hours of deliberations, and Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026; Clancy remains at Tewksbury State Hospital, with a status hearing set for September 29. After the mistrial, President Donald Trump called the killings a "horrible, horrible thing" and said there would be "a price" in a mental institution or jail; Reddington later asked Trump to pardon Clancy — a power that does not cover these state charges — and said he hoped to reach an agreement with District Attorney Timothy Cruz.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 16 articles

10 of 14 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 10 of 14
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Kevin Reddington, Donald Trump, Timothy Cruz, Berkshire District Attorney Timothy Shugrue, William Sullivan and Judge William Sullivan
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 14
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court hearing, press statement, court ruling, video
Credits another outlet 0 of 14
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 14
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 7, 10:16 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document 22 hours later, from Daily Wire (court ruling).
Not counted 2
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage does not state the rule that framed the hung jury. Massachusetts required prosecutors to prove Clancy did not have a mental disease, and left-leaning coverage is more complete on that burden. Left-leaning coverage at ABC News quoted the state court instruction that criminal responsibility depends on disproving a "mental disease or defect." From right-leaning coverage alone, the deadlock looks like simple disagreement over a woman who killed her children, not a failure to meet that test. Word choice tracked the same split. Left-leaning coverage, via ABC News, called postpartum psychosis a "psychiatric emergency." The New York Post called her a "killer mom." If she is found not criminally responsible, how long would the state keep her confined?
Bottom line

A reader of Fox News or the Daily Wire never learns that Massachusetts required prosecutors to disprove a mental disease before they could convict Clancy. ABC News put that instruction in the mistrial story.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy did not suffer from a mental disease or defect legal rulingin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Clancy strangled her three children with exercise bands contextin Daily Wire, Daily Caller, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Clancy threw herself from a bedroom window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed individual casein NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey holds the power to pardon state offenses legal rulingin BBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Each first-degree murder count carried a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole legal rulingin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • After the mistrial, Kevin Reddington said he would next defend Kelsie Cote, accused of killing her grandmother for money individual casein Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage from NBC, ABC, BBC, The Hill, and The Washington Post treated the mistrial chiefly as a postpartum-psychosis and next-steps story. They gave prominent play to Reddington's claim that the panel leaned 11-1 toward not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility and that the holdout "had doubt" but "would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge," and to his description of Clancy as "intelligent," "hardworking," and an "incredible person" who had told people "I am not well." NBC and ABC aired his line that "People do not understand or know what they are doing, and it is real, and it is frightening," along with his hope Cruz would "work something out that would be acceptable to both sides" after seeing both sides' evidence. Those outlets also stressed that a presidential pardon cannot reach Massachusetts murder charges, noted Reddington may ask that the mistrial be reconsidered, and reported Patrick Clancy's lawyers condemning a "campaign of misinformation" that falsely implicated him in the deaths.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets including Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, and the New York Post framed the mistrial as leaving the strangling of three children — which Clancy never denied — without a verdict. They led with Trump's remark that she "did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse" and that "there'll be a price," and treated the pardon request as legally impossible and at odds with those comments. The New York Post called her the "killer mom"; the Daily Wire highlighted Reddington immediately confirming he would next defend Kelsie Cote, accused of killing her grandmother for money, whom he called "a very nice young lady." Fox quoted Cruz that "Children were murdered, and it's our job to seek justice" and that evidence "suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides," and carried Patrick Clancy's lawyers' warning of legal consequences against conspiracy influencers.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is medical and procedural: postpartum psychosis is a recognized psychiatric emergency, Clancy documented distress and help-seeking, and a reported 11-1 deadlock after 38 hours is evidence that the state's burden on criminal responsibility was not clearly met — with the further point that a lack-of-responsibility finding would still mean years of hospital confinement, not release. The right's strongest argument is the undisputed sequence of the deaths and the prosecution's control-and-planning evidence, reinforced by Cruz's insistence she "was in control of her actions" and by Trump's statement that "there'll be a price." The central unresolved tension is whether a credited perinatal psychotic break negates criminal responsibility for strangling three children, or whether the manner, number, and alleged premeditation of those homicides still require a conviction or retrial after a hung jury.

16 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.