08/26/2026
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LINDSAY CLANCY CASE.
Facebook wouldn't let me upload the 7-minute video I recorded, so here's the transcript with my thoughts.
__________________________________________________________________
I keep hearing the same 3 statements being made over and over again about the Lindsay Clancy trial, and they are all wrong. Let me tell you why.
*Comment #1. This trial is not about whether or not she did it; itās about whether or not she is criminally responsible.
Thatās not true, though. The defense made a written offer to the prosecution (the prosecution being the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) to bifurcate the trial. Meaning that they offered to stipulate that she did it to avoid a full murder trial, but that still is not a legal confession. They offered to, instead, just decide whether or not she did it on purpose and of right mind. In other words, there would only be 2 jury outcomes: guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity (in Mass., not criminally responsible). A hung jury is always an option too, but you get what Iām saying.
So the prosecution, Miss Bow herself, REJECTED the offer to skip the murder trial and just cut to the chase, because they wanted to bring on a full trial instead. They thought they had enough evidence to prove her guilt.
This was a mistake, IMO, because what that means is they now have the full burden of proof. They now have to fully prove that she did these murders in the first place beyond a reasonable doubt. If theyād agreed to the bifurcated trial, then they wouldāve just taken care of whether she meant to or not, but they opted NOT to do that. This is where people are getting confused.
So in THIS trial, there are actually now three jury outcomes, not including a hung jury. There is now not guilty PERIOD, not guilty by reason of insanity/not criminally responsible, or guilty. If you donāt wanna take my word for it, ask the journalist Aaron Parnas- he said it himself too.
So just so you know, it very much IS about whether or not she did it in the first place, and not guilty is very much still a possible outcome. Letās stop getting hung up on the bifurcation that was NOT accepted or agreed to, because that is not on the table anymore.
____________________
*Comment #2. She confessed to doing it; therefore, she did it.
But thatās not how that works, anyway. I could confess to stealing the Declaration of Independence like Iām Nicolas Cage; I could turn myself in and give a whole made-up story about how I did it, all the steps I took to prepare, the precautions I took, etc., but I didnāt do it if thereās no hard evidence that I did. In a murder trial, the burden of proof is the highest in the land, per se, so just because somebody confessed (though we donāt have proof, as Patrick was the one whoād said, "she killed the f** kids"), that doesnāt actually meet the burden of proof. There has to be actual forensic evidence like DNA or fingerprints. There has to be something that irrevocably, unquestionably, undeniably ties you to that crime. You have to be on camera, or there has to be an eyewitness; something has to be able to be proven that you, in fact, are the only person who could have done the thing.
"But Isabelle, she was the only one home at the time."
Yeah, thatās called circumstantial evidence, meaning only the circumstances of that night SUGGEST she was the one who did it, but that is not hard evidence that meets the burden of proof. Imagine I walk over to my neighbor Kellyās house, right? And tell her, āIām gonna commit arson tonight. Sounds fun! Want in?ā I leave her house, and later that night my shed catches on fire while Iām the only one home. Did I do it? Whereās the proof? Thereās no legitimate evidence that I was the one who started the fire. Now, there COULD be evidence if a proper, thorough investigation takes place. Let's say they then go to the shed and look for the cause of the fire, but whoās to say it wasnāt due to faulty wiring or a lightning strike? Kelly gets nervous, tells them I planned it, that I confessed, but does that hold up in a court of law? Maybe they find a match or smell gasoline, maybe they find my DNA somewhere on the ground around the burnt wood, maybe this, maybe that. But in this trial Iām yapping on about, they didnāt actually properly investigate. The problem is that they couldāve perhaps found evidence that she did it, but instead just took the word of some negligent husband who SAID that she confessed to him, even though she could not have possibly verbally confessed to it in her state. But I wonāt touch on that right now.
___________________________
*Comment #3. She is a murderer, and she, therefore, deserves to have all this public torture.
Not quite. Sheās not a murderer, because thatās what this whole trial is about. That is what this will determine.
I fear that some of you say words but donāt hear what youāre saying out loud, because you know what āinnocent until proven guiltyā means until you start talking about a case like this. One that tugs at your heartstrings and makes you angry for the victims -- trust me, I'm a mom, I get it too.
But 'innocent until proven guilty' is not just some cute phrase people say; itās legitimate legal precedent. Itās the very way that our system works. I could brush that off as ignorance, but donāt you think itās a little messed up that a lot of us donāt know what our rights are, or how the law or civic society works? Like, is that to your benefit at all? Let's be real.
Lindsay Clancy is innocent until she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She can be proven guilty via a murder trial, which is still happening. The trial has not concluded; she has not been proven to be a murderer. You cannot say that she is one yet because she is not right now.
The trial determines whether or not she did it, but according to the outcome of the trial, we are supposed to believe that she is either guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity, but you canāt say that she is a murderer before the trial is over. You canāt even determine the nature of the outcome based on your own conclusion that she is a murderer because you have to presume that sheās innocent before the thing even begins. I can continue to word this point 18 different ways, but I'm saying the same exact thing repeatedly: labels are unnecessary and fear-mongering until there is proof.
Matter of fact, she originally pleaded NOT GUILTY, but Iām not here to break down all of that on this post.
Now, I acknowledge thatās not really the reality of the situation, because, of course, all the news outlets are calling her a āmommy killerā or trying to get the best hook for their headline, and people are droning on about how she did it, she did it, she did it, so I understand why people would jump on that bandwagon. But none of yāall should be saying all that yet because the trial is to prove whether or not she did it. Youāre supposed to presume she didnāt do it until the end of the trial when the jury deliberates; thatās how the system is supposed to work. And if something like this ever happens to you, youāre certainly gonna wish that people would presume youāre innocent before youāre thrown out to the wolves.
But if after all this rambling, you still think, āI donāt give a f*ck, she murdered her kids, she needs the death penalty,ā (when thatās not even an option in the state of Massachusetts), then this conversation is a little too elevated for you right now, and I think it went over your head. Either that or you just hate women, and I will not be explaining any of this further at this time.
Love you, bye.
xo, Isabelle
