Jury seated for Lindsay Clancy murder trial; opening statements set for Monday 13%

By Shelley Murphy37%

7/23/2026, 9:02:04 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.7% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 726 faulty-reasoning hits from 927 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.3% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,208 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.80% of the article peer group.

PLYMOUTH  A jury of 12 women and six men  including six alternates  has been selected to decide the fate of Lindsay Clancy, the Duxbury mother accused of killing her three children, paving the way for opening statements and testimony on Monday. 
Yet, the defense and prosecution were still battling during a heated exchange Thursday in Plymouth Superior Court over graphic evidence and how many witnesses will be allowed to testify at the high-profile trial which is expected to last six weeks. 
“Even though we are in court, let’s talk a little about humanity, let’s talk about how we should try this case,” said Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, who agreed to stipulate to some facts in an unsuccessful effort to persuade prosecutors to limit the number of first responders who will testify about the slayings. 
“What I can’t fathom is the district attorney’s intent to put a circus in front of this jury that is calculated to just inflame the passions of the jury,” Reddington said. 
He said he also supported a request by Clancy’s former husband, Patrick, to prevent the public release of some of the evidence that will be presented to jurors, including autopsy photos of his children and a recording of a 911 call he made on the night of the slayings in January 2023. 
Patrick Clancy, 38, who is expected to be the first witness called to testify Monday, has remarried and is “trying to move on with his life,” Reddington said. 
But, he’s being hounded by some tabloid media outlets, according to Reddington, who accused prosecutors of wanting to “put that guy on the stand and show little onesies” his children were wearing when they were killed. 
“I think it’s reprehensible the way the government is trying this case,” Reddington said. 
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague, who alleges Lindsay Clancy premeditated the brutal murders, countered that the defense is trying to “whitewash” the gruesome facts of the case. 
Lindsay Clancy, 35, strangled all three of her children with exercise bands in the basement of her Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023, cut her neck and wrists, and jumped out a second-story window in an unsuccessful attempt to kill herself. 
The former labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital admits she killed 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. 
But she has pleaded not guilty to three first-degree murder charges, saying she was in the throes of severe postpartum mental illness. 
Sprague has accused Lindsay Clancy of deliberately sending her then-husband out to pick up takeout at a restaurant that was far enough away to give her time to kill their children. 
Prosecutors plan to play the recording of the 911 call by Patrick Clancy after he found his injured wife outside the home, then his discovery of his children’s lifeless bodies in the basement. 
During Thursday’s hearing, Sprague said there was a massive response by police, fire and EMTs as they desperately tried to save the children, and tend to Lindsay Clancy and her distraught husband who also went to the hospital. 
As a result, she said, prosecutors must call many witnesses. 
“The Commonwealth did not choose the number of victims, the defendant did,” Sprague said. 
She added that if Reddington wants the prosecution to reduce the number of witnesses, it would require not talking about one of the victims. 
“So if he would like me to not talk about one of the children ... tell me which one of these children don’t matter,” Sprague said. 
Judge William F. 
Sullivan denied the defense request to limit the number of prosecution witnesses, saying, “I’m not telling the Commonwealth how to try their case.” 
He took under advisement the request by Patrick Clancy’s lawyer to impound the 911 recording, autopsy photos, and other exhibits that will be presented to jurors. 
He said he expects to rule on that Friday. 
Attorney David Meier, who represents Patrick Clancy, requested a sidebar, where his motion was discussed at length with the judge, prosecutors, and Reddington out of earshot of the public and members of the media seated in the spectator section. 
Afterward, in open court, Meier argued that the harm to Patrick Clancy caused by the public release of some exhibits outweighed the public’s right to access them. 
Meier also is urging the judge to bar the release of any photos and videos shown to jurors of the Clancy children when they were alive, and photos of the clothing they were wearing when they were slain. 
Jury selection, which was held over four days, was completed Thursday, but not without a setback earlier in the day. 
Two jurors, a man and a woman, who had been seated earlier, returned to court saying they couldn’t serve. 
The two were questioned separately at sidebar by Sullivan, prosecutors, and Clancy’s lawyer. 
Their reasons for seeking removal weren’t publicly disclosed, but it appeared the man was concerned about the financial strain of missing work for a lengthy trial. 
He could be overheard saying, “50 bucks a day,“ which is the amount of compensation the state pays a juror starting on the fourth day they serve on a jury. 
Employers are required to pay jurors their salary for the first three days they serve, according to the state’s website. 
Sullivan excused the two jurors. 
Earlier in the week, he excused another juror who also returned to court a day after being selected, seeking removal from the panel. 
Shelley Murphy can be reached at shelley.murphy@globe.com. 
Follow her @shelleymurph. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Shelley Murphy: 3.4%Boston Globe: 3.0%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Shelley Murphy: 6.6%Boston Globe: 3.3%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 3.6%Boston Globe: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.3%Boston Globe: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 4.1%Boston Globe: 5.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Shelley Murphy: 0.8%Boston Globe: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.8%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.2%Boston Globe: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Shelley Murphy: 8.3%Boston Globe: 7.9%Negativity Bias11.7%This article: 7.0%Shelley Murphy: 1.8%Boston Globe: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Shelley Murphy: 0.3%Boston Globe: 1.4%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Shelley Murphy: 2.3%Boston Globe: 0.7%Ad Hominem3.9%This article: 2.9%Shelley Murphy: 0.9%Boston Globe: 0.3%Straw Man2.9%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 2.4%Boston Globe: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.9%Shelley Murphy: 3.3%Boston Globe: 1.1%False Dilemma6.9%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Shelley Murphy: 3.2%Boston Globe: 2.8%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.4%Shelley Murphy: 10.7%Boston Globe: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion11.4%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.1%Shelley Murphy: 0.6%Boston Globe: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.1%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.6%Boston Globe: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 2.0%Boston Globe: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.4%Boston Globe: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.3%Boston Globe: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.4%Boston Globe: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 1.0%Boston Globe: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 1.3%Boston Globe: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.2%Shelley Murphy: 3.4%Boston Globe: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice7.2%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 1.2%Boston Globe: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.7%Boston Globe: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shelley Murphy: 0.0%Boston Globe: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

927 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers52%attributed speech446writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Reddington • 53 words • 100.0% coverageKevin Reddington • 31 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Reddington • 52 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Reddington • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Reddington • 36 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Reddington • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Sprague • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam F. Sullivan • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam F. Sullivan • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Meier • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Meier • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jennifer Sprague

78%flagged-word coverage
170 attributed words35% of attributed speech25% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.