Lindsay Clancy's Not Guilty Bid Checked Point by Point Against the Duxbury Mom Trial Record | Pt 77

After the mistrial, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer asked the judge to find her not guilty. So I took his argument to the trial record, point by point. Lindsay Clancy is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, in Duxbury, Massachusetts, the case known as the Duxbury Mom trial. The question at its core: cold, calculated murder, or postpartum psychosis that no one stopped? Her trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree. A mistrial is not a verdict. She has not been convicted of anything, and she is presumed innocent on all three counts. At the hearing on September 29, defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William F. Sullivan to do what the jury never did: enter a required finding of not guilty. He walked the evidence point by point. The blood in the bedroom, the window screen, the cup on the nightstand, the DNA on the exercise bands, the timeline, her 82-degree temperature, and the doctors. The judge took it under advisement without ruling. I play him in his own words, go to the trial record on every point, and show you the footage. On the bedroom, the screen, the untested cup and the gaps in the investigation, the record backs a lot of what he said. On the 82 degrees and what the prosecution said in its closing, it does not. On the DNA, the prosecution's summary at this hearing went further than the lab report the jury heard. On the so-called admission, the chaplain's own words on the stand are softer than the prosecution's version of them. And on criminal responsibility, the record shows what a hung jury looks like: two sets of doctors, the same woman, opposite answers on the one question that decides this case. Then there is the bind. Massachusetts gives a defendant no right to a split trial, so a woman who says she was not responsible has to stand in front of the same jury and in effect admit the act. In California the law would have split it, guilt first and sanity second. For the whole trial the defense did not fight who did it. Now it argues that was never proved, and the prosecution called that a laughable argument. Is that a lawyer protecting the record for a retrial, or an argument the evidence never tested? In a case where her state of mind was everything, why was the cup never tested? And should a defendant have to choose? I show you the record. You decide. --- WHAT JUSTICE BREAKS DOWN 0:00 - What this video is, and a preview 0:17 - Intro 1:17 - Video starts: The motion Reddington put to the judge after the mistrial 4:55 - Breaks down the split-trial bind, and what California does differently 13:19 - Walks the bedroom against the record: the blood drops, the screen, the socks and the smears 21:02 - Pushes on the cup nobody tested, the DNA on the bands and the missing prints 28:05 - Separates the chaplain's own words from the claimed admission, then the timeline and the 82 degrees 40:13 - Lays out the doctors' fight over criminal responsibility, and the prosecution's word "choice" 50:26 - Plays the prosecution's full answer, and where the record lands on every point --- COMPLETE CASE COVERAGE justiceisaprocess.com SUBSCRIBE for daily trial coverage and hit the notification bell so you never miss testimony. JOIN to unlock the Case Notebook powered by NotebookLM, where you can chat with the evidence, ask questions about testimony, and go deeper than any comment section allows. CASE BACKGROUND REPORT: https://justiceisaprocess.com/ma-v-cl... Complete case overview: the charges, the timeline, the people at the center, the McHoul standard, and the legal analysis behind Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Lindsay Clancy. LATEST ARTICLE: https://justiceisaprocess.com/desk-20... PLAYLISTS AND RESOURCES Website: https://justiceisaprocess.com/coverag... Full Trial Live Broadcasts:    • Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy: Full Trial...   No Breaks Edition:    • Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy: No Breaks ...   Trial Analysis Podcast:    • Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy: Case Story...   Key Moments and Testimony:    • Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy: Key Moment...   Subscribe for Daily Coverage:    / @justiceisaprocess   FAIR USE AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE This content is produced under Fair Use (17 U.S.C. 107) for news reporting, criticism, and educational purposes. We provide transformative commentary on public court proceedings, advancing public understanding of the judicial process through timestamps, analysis, and educational context. #JusticeIsAProcess #DuxburyMomTrial #LindsayClancy