Lindsay Clancy murder trial: Judge limits access to autopsy photos, husband’s 911 call 24%

By Abby Patkin27%

7/24/2026, 10:32:55 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 485 faulty-reasoning hits from 325 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.8% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,666 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.10% of the article peer group.

The judge overseeing Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial has barred media outlets from recording or livestreaming the anguished 911 call Clancy’s then-husband made the night she allegedly killed their children. 
Sullivan handed down the order just days before opening statements in the case begin Monday, also limiting public access to autopsy photos of the Clancy children. 
The order does not bar the testifying witness, jury, prosecution, or defense from viewing or accessing the materials in question. 
Patrick Clancy, the defendant’s former husband, had asked Sullivan to shield his 911 call from public view, in addition to the children’s clothing and photos from the autopsies and crime scene. 
“The potential harmful and everlasting emotional impact to Mr. 
Clancy and his family of any public dissemination of such graphic and sensational evidence and exhibits related to his three children is immeasurable,” a lawyer for Pat Clancy argued in the motion. 
“Likewise, the disrespect for the dignity and memory of the three child victims that would inherently be occasioned by such dissemination speaks for itself.” 
Sullivan largely agreed, deciding that while media outlets may report on the contents of the 911 call and autopsy photos, they may not record, display, or reproduce the sensitive evidence. 
The rule also applies to members of the public sitting in on Lindsay Clancy’s trial, he said. 
Clancy, 35, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan Clancy. 
She has admitted to strangling her children but has pleaded not guilty, arguing she was in the throes of postpartum mental illness and heard a voice in her head telling her to kill the children and herself. 
Opening statements in the high-profile trial will begin Monday morning, after which Patrick Clancy is expected to testify. 
According to defense attorney Kevin Reddington, Patrick Clancy has since divorced Lindsay Clancy and remarried. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.4%Abby Patkin: 4.3%Boston.com: 2.2%Confirmation Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 3.5%Boston.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 3.1%Boston.com: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.4%Abby Patkin: 2.1%Boston.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%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: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 4.9%Boston.com: 5.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 9.8%Abby Patkin: 2.3%Boston.com: 0.8%Loss Aversion9.8%This article: 9.2%Abby Patkin: 0.6%Boston.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.9%Boston.com: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 2.4%Boston.com: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.7%Abby Patkin: 14.1%Boston.com: 6.2%Negativity Bias27.7%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.5%Boston.com: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Abby Patkin: 2.3%Boston.com: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error20.9%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.1%Boston.com: 1.0%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: 1.1%Boston.com: 2.7%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: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 1.0%Boston.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.8%Boston.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.3%Boston.com: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 2.8%Boston.com: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 3.1%Boston.com: 1.1%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: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 4.2%Boston.com: 3.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.8%Boston.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.2%Boston.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.2%Abby Patkin: 9.4%Boston.com: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion17.2%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 1.0%Boston.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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: 0.3%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: 9.8%Abby Patkin: 1.7%Boston.com: 2.2%Anecdotal9.8%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 1.0%Boston.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 2.8%Abby Patkin: 1.9%Boston.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 6.8%Abby Patkin: 2.4%Boston.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.8%This article: 18.8%Abby Patkin: 4.8%Boston.com: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice18.8%This article: 7.4%Abby Patkin: 0.3%Boston.com: 1.3%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Abby Patkin: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%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: 1.6%Boston.com: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

325 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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