OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Lindsay Clancy Lawyer Rejects TikTok Conspiracy Theories

10 sources · updated 2026-09-11
Left 25% Center 0% Right 75%
1 left · 0 center · 3 right

What happened

Lindsay Clancy, a former nurse, is accused of strangling her three children — Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months — in their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023, then cutting her wrists and jumping from a second-story window. Her murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court ended in a mistrial on September 4 after jurors deadlocked 11-1 following more than 38 hours of deliberation; they could have chosen first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, acquittal, or not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. Both sides agree she killed the children: the defense argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis and overmedication, while prosecutors argued she planned the killings and knew right from wrong. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said he will file a motion on September 29 to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds, arguing Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial without “manifest necessity” after declining to question or remove a holdout juror. Clancy remains at Tewksbury State Hospital on suicide watch; Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether he will retry the case.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles

4 of 4 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 4 of 4
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, Howard Cooper, Robert Kerr and prosecutors
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 4
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: news interview, 911 call transcript, court proceeding, police reports
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
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 4
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 9, 16:10 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (news interview).
Not counted 0
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

Left-leaning coverage reports that Clancy's lawyer will seek a dismissal but omits the legal claim that would end the case. The NBC News account records a motion to dismiss, then stays with suicide watch and her wish for her children. Right-leaning coverage is more complete on the mechanism, reporting in Daily Wire a double jeopardy argument that the judge declared a mistrial without manifest necessity. That is the difference between asking a prosecutor for mercy and arguing that a second trial would be unlawful. Right-leaning coverage leads with the lawyer's bid to throw the case out and with how the children died. Left-leaning coverage leads with her present condition and her rejection of theories about her ex-husband. None of the coverage includes the holdout juror's own account of the note that said he had doubt and would not apply the law.
Bottom line

Read only NBC News and you never learn that Clancy's lawyer is trying to make a retrial illegal. Daily Wire is the outlet that reports the double jeopardy claim.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Reddington said he will file a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds because the mistrial lacked manifest necessity. official statementin Daily Wire, CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justice denied Reddington's emergency stay seeking to send the jurors back to deliberations. legal rulingin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Clancy remains suicidal and is on 24/7 one-on-one suicide watch. individual casein NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands, then slashed her wrists and leaped from a second-story window. contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Reddington filed a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, treating juror interviews as an unannounced verdict. official statementin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
NBC News frames the aftermath around Clancy’s illness and Reddington’s claim that “the person that committed this atrocious act was as a result of postpartum psychosis combined with the medications that she was provided.” He said she is “suicidal,” on 24/7 watch, “living in hell,” and repeats “I want my babies,” and that she was “hurt” by how she was described but “never once expressed anger towards anybody in the system.” Coverage highlights three jurors’ account that the majority favored lack of criminal responsibility, and Reddington’s argument that she told her struggles to “anyone who would listen,” “did the best that she could,” and “was failed by these doctors.” He said he will seek dismissal, would not take a plea that put her in jail “for even a day,” and asked President Trump for a pardon — though the charges are state, not federal — hoping Trump might influence Cruz. He also said Clancy rejects online theories accusing her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, of the deaths, calling what Patrick has endured “a nightmare that he doesn’t deserve.”
The Right View
Daily Wire casts Reddington’s dismissal bid as a “long-shot” and “Hail Mary” in a “high-stakes legal circus,” stressing that Clancy “methodically strangled” the children and that he will never agree she “do a day in jail.” It highlights jurors’ descriptions of an “arrogant” lone male holdout and Reddington’s claim the judge rushed the mistrial without manifest necessity after refusing to remove that juror. The outlets note a renewed motion for a directed finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, arguing “no rational jury” could find she lacked a mental disease and treating post-trial juror interviews as an “unannounced verdict.” Coverage underscores that presidents have “zero authority” over state cases, quotes Trump calling the killings “a horrible, horrible thing” and predicting “mental institution or jail,” and reports Reddington more bluntly telling people to “stop with the speculation and horrific conspiracy allegations” about Patrick Clancy.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that an 11-1 deadlock, with the majority for lack of criminal responsibility, plus Clancy’s ongoing psychiatric collapse, supports treating the mistrial as a failure to prove criminal responsibility rather than a reset for conviction — backed by jurors’ public account of a holdout who expressed doubt but would not apply it, and Reddington’s “failed by these doctors” and “I want my babies” framing. The right’s strongest argument is that she admittedly killed three children in a planned sequence while her husband was out, that a mistrial is not an acquittal, and that dismissal, a no-jail-ever stance, and a Trump pardon request are a “long-shot” attempt to short-circuit accountability Trump summarized as “mental institution or jail.” The central unresolved tension is whether the hung jury and disputed psychosis mean the state lacked a fair completed verdict, or whether the gravity of the admitted killings still requires a retrial the defense is trying to legally and politically foreclose.

10 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.