Lindsay Clancy murder trial: Here’s a quick primer on the case 28%

By Abby Patkin29%

7/20/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 33.7% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 800 faulty-reasoning hits from 501 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.3% and a BS Rank of 28% (14,759 of 20,453 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.20% of the article peer group.

Lindsay Clancy will soon head to trial for allegedly strangling her children to death in 2023  a violent incident that sent shockwaves through the family’s South Shore community and sparked national debate about postpartum mental health. 
Jury selection in the Duxbury mother’s trial starts Monday, more than three years after she allegedly killed 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan Clancy. 
Below, find a quick guide to the case. 
Prosecutors say Clancy sent her husband out to pick up dinner and run an errand the evening of Jan. 24, 2023, using Apple Maps to determine how long he’d be gone so she could “execute” their children “one by one.” 
Clancy allegedly strangled the children with exercise bands in the basement of their Duxbury home before attempting suicide, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down. 
Cora and Dawson were pronounced dead later that evening, while Callan died three days later at Boston Children’s Hospital. 
Prosecutors allege Clancy planned the killings, noting that she wrote a journal entry about “resenting” her two oldest children and wanting to “feel love and connection with all of my kids.” 
Shortly before Jan. 24, she allegedly made an internet search for “can you treat a sociopath?” 
Further reading: Lindsay Clancy timeline: Here’s what prosecutors say happened in the family’s Duxbury home on Jan. 
24 
Further reading: What we learned from Duxbury mom Lindsay Clancy’s superior court arraignment 
Clancy’s lawyer contends she had worsening depression and insomnia following the birth of her youngest child. 
According to the defense, she desperately sought help from mental health care providers, who prescribed her more than a dozen different psychiatric medications in a matter of months. 
Clancy filed a malpractice lawsuit against several of those providers in January, accusing them of failing to diagnose her bipolar disorder and prescribing a revolving door of pharmaceuticals that triggered a psychotic break. 
She alleges she heard a voice in her head on Jan. 24 that told her, “This is your last chance. 
Kill the children so you can kill yourself.” 
Further reading: ‘Go to God, baby’: Lindsay Clancy files malpractice lawsuit, says she heard a voice ordering her to kill her children 
Further reading: Lindsay Clancy timeline: What court records, attorney statements reveal about the Duxbury mother’s mental health 
Further reading: Lindsay Clancy was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications in recent months, attorney says 
The charges Clancy faces include three counts of first-degree murder. 
She was previously charged with three counts of strangulation as well, but prosecutors dropped those “redundant” charges earlier this month ahead of her trial. 
Further reading: Lindsay Clancy’s strangulation charges dropped ahead of murder trial 
Further reading: Duxbury woman Lindsay Clancy indicted in deaths of her three kids 
How long the trial will take remains unclear, though attorneys on both sides have estimated the proceedings will run four to six weeks once a jury is seated. 
Judge William Sullivan said he plans to impanel 18 jurors, including six alternates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.0%Abby Patkin: 4.3%Boston.com: 2.3%Confirmation Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 3.9%Boston.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Abby Patkin: 3.5%Boston.com: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 2.1%Boston.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.5%Boston.com: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Abby Patkin: 5.4%Boston.com: 6.0%Framing Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 2.2%Boston.com: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Abby Patkin: 1.0%Boston.com: 2.2%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 2.7%Boston.com: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Abby Patkin: 14.6%Boston.com: 6.3%Negativity Bias23.6%This article: 5.6%Abby Patkin: 0.5%Boston.com: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias5.6%This article: 3.2%Abby Patkin: 1.8%Boston.com: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.2%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.1%Boston.com: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 1.2%Boston.com: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Abby Patkin: 1.2%Boston.com: 1.4%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.9%Boston.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Abby Patkin: 3.1%Boston.com: 4.1%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 3.5%Boston.com: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.7%Boston.com: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Abby Patkin: 4.7%Boston.com: 3.2%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 8.0%Abby Patkin: 0.9%Boston.com: 0.2%Red Herring8.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.2%Boston.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 33.7%Abby Patkin: 8.4%Boston.com: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion33.7%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%Abby Patkin: 1.1%Boston.com: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 1.6%Boston.com: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.0%Abby Patkin: 1.2%Boston.com: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.2%Boston.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Abby Patkin: 1.9%Boston.com: 1.4%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 5.6%Abby Patkin: 2.2%Boston.com: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 8.0%Abby Patkin: 4.6%Boston.com: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 1.6%Abby Patkin: 0.1%Boston.com: 1.1%Indoctrination1.6%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 1.8%Boston.com: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

501 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech411writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLindsay Clancy • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLindsay Clancy • 33 words • 0.0% coverageLindsay Clancy • 20 words • 100.0% coverageLindsay Clancy • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJudge William Sullivan • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lindsay Clancy

100%flagged-word coverage
77 attributed words86% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Quote-first Misdirection+36.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lindsay Clancy: 36.4%36.4%Unattributed Quote+26.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lindsay Clancy: 26.0%26.0%Indoctrination+10.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lindsay Clancy: 10.4%10.4%Biased Writer Voice-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Lindsay Clancy: 0.0%0.0%

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.