MY LINDSAY CLANCY PREDICTION: I DON’T THINK A RETRIAL IS A GUARANTEE ANYMORE. When the jury hung, my first thought was: There is no way DA Tim Cruz doesn’t retry this case. Now I’m not so sure. During deliberations, Kevin Reddington made it very clear that Cruz had the control which we already know. This helped strengthen my prediction originally that the DA really wants Clancy for the 3 First Degrees. “Right now, it’s three counts of first-degree murder. I cannot waive a jury. There’s no plea bargaining, there’s nothing.” And: “Cruz wants his triple homicide convictions, consecutive life sentences with Lindsay. The judge can’t do anything about it and I can’t do anything about it.” Reddington also said: “You should ask Mr. Cruz why he did not reduce the charges to second degree.” Before the mistrial, Cruz was pushing for three first-degree murder convictions. There was no plea deal. There was no reduction to second degree. Then the jury heard the entire case. They deliberated for around 40 hours. And they still could not agree. That changes things. Cruz now knows another jury could have the same problem. And one thing I am weighing very heavily in this prediction is what the families may want. Patrick has already lost Cora, Dawson and Callan. He had to testify. He had to sit through the trial. He had to hear the details of his children’s deaths discussed over and over again. He’s been dealing with harassment. And now he may be facing the possibility of doing all of that again. His attorney has already said another trial would be extraordinarily painful for Patrick and his family. Patrick does not get to make the final decision. The families do not legally control whether Cruz retries the case of course. But I believe their input will matter big time when I look at what may happen next. If Patrick and other members of Cora, Dawson and Callan’s family do not want to be dragged through another long trial, I have a hard time believing the DA would not take that seriously. That does not mean Cruz automatically gives them whatever they want. But I absolutely think it could matter. So this is my prediction: I think there is a real chance Cruz offers some kind of plea deal instead of doing the entire trial again. That could mean second-degree murder. It could mean manslaughter. It could mean some other agreement. This is just my prediction based on what has been said publicly, what happened with the jury, and what the surviving family may want going forward. A few days ago, I thought another trial was almost certain. Now I don’t. The first jury could not agree. Reddington has already talked about second degree. He has said there was no plea bargaining because Cruz was pushing first degree. And now Cruz has to decide whether putting these families through another entire trial is worth the risk of ending up in the exact same place. So where does Cruz drive this now? Another first-degree murder trial? A lesser charge? Or a plea deal? And how much weight do you think the wishes of Cora, Dawson and Callan’s family should carry in that decision?

It’s hard to go from in love to let go in a week with no warning, but that’s just how it is sometimes 🤷🏻‍♀️ I feel happy that I got to show Elon how it feels to be deeply understood, nurtured, and peacefully loved with stability and gentleness. Given the tumultuous nature of his early life, his often tortured soul, and how hard he fights for humanity I wanted him to feel the deepest and most stable form of love this world can provide. My heart is full knowing I got to do that, and I hope it leaves a lasting good effect. We were always his safe space. A place where all of us were overjoyed to see him and one that was always full of happiness and love, not war, in contrast to his otherwise militant existence (a needed break from the battlefield where he could recharge his heart and soul before heading back out) I loved being that counterbalancing place of safety, sense of calm, and love — and delighted in bringing a smile back to his face when he was down. I will miss him dearly. I’ve loved him more than life itself and he’s taught me 100 lifetimes of knowledge and made my cup overflow with life meaning, so there is a lot of loss, but luckily we created four beautiful little loves of my life ❤️❤️❤️❤️ I am so beyond grateful for our children and they make every single day the best day of my life! I do hope and pray he and I can be great friends and coparents. I’m hurting, but care deeply about E and will always be cheering for his happiness. God speed, Elon, the world is lucky to have you.

I’m going give someone random who retweets this tweet $10,000 because it’s my birthday and I feel like being nice ☺️ (you have to be following me so I can dm you the code if you win)

🚨 I’VE BEEN SAYING IT. NOW HEAR IT STRAIGHT FROM PATRICK CLANCY’S MOUTH. - Extended Interview clip: “Both our parents were trying to help as much as they could. We had friends in town dropping off meals. Lindsay was pretty open about it. You know, people at the kids’ school were aware of it and they were trying to be helpful.” BOTH families. Friends. The children’s school. Medical professionals. But please, tell me again how nobody helped Lindsay. How she was abandoned. How everyone failed her. HOW MUCH MORE HELP WAS EVERYONE SUPPOSED TO GIVE HER? I’ve been pushing back on this narrative for months, and Patrick just confirmed exactly what I’ve been saying. The people around her were showing up. Three children are dead, and somehow we’re still busy assigning blame to everyone except the person who killed them. What are we even doing here? Enough is enough. 🎥 60 Minutes @60Minutes

There is so much said just in a couple pages of this article that strengthen my belief that Lindsay Clancy was completely full of shit. Can you guys point out all of the key points and inconsistencies in this? I’m curious if we notice the same points or not. 📰 The New Yorker October 14, 2024. ➡️ “Her parents drove up from Connecticut for days at a time to help with child care while Pat worked from a home office. In the afternoons, when Lindsay’s Ativan wore off, Pat would find her rocking back and forth on the living-room couch, her heart racing. She’d say that she felt terrified, but Pat couldn’t understand why. After Lindsay went a second consecutive night with no sleep, she drove herself to the emergency room. She returned home a few hours later and told Pat, “They gave me some Ambien and said it should be O.K.” The Ambien didn’t help, though, so Lindsay contacted a new medical office and began seeing Rebecca Jollotta, a perinatal psychiatric nurse practitioner. As with Tufts, the appointments were virtual, but after a few sessions Pat arranged an in-person visit. According to him, Jollotta was quick to prescribe more medication, including Seroquel, an antipsychotic that is used off label, in low doses, as a sleep aid.” Lindsay’s defense team has named “horrific overmedication” as the chief cause of her mental decline, a line of reasoning that may provide some solace to her loved ones. It can be comforting, as Feingold told me, to “blame an external source” for the inner changes wrought by mental illnesses, but the link between psychotropic drugs and violent behavior is poorly understood. At Lindsay’s arraignment, Kevin Reddington, her attorney, pointed out that some of the antidepressants she took have so-called “black box” labels listing suicidal ideation as a rare adverse effect. Those warnings, however, are primarily for adolescents. And while it’s true that Lindsay was prescribed an unusually extensive list of drugs—more than a dozen in the course of four months—Reddington has drawn a dubious connection between those medications and “workplace violence, homicides, family homicides,” as he put it in court. According to a medication diary that Lindsay kept, which was seized as part of the investigation, she was taking just three drugs—one benzodiazepine and two antidepressants—in the days leading up to the killings.” ⬅️

A juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial reached out to the court asking that the juror impoundment order be extended indefinitely, court has extended the order. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, ss. SUPERIOR COURT No. 23CR198 COMMONWEALTH vs. LINDSAY CLANCY ORDER TO EXTEND SEPTEMBER 4, 2026 IMPOUNDMENT ORDER This case has garnered and continues to garner significant and divisive attention in Massachusetts, nationally and internationally. The trial was livestreamed on local and national broadcasting channels. The proceedings have been and continue to be the daily subject of commentary and opinions on various media platforms. This Court acknowledges that the names of empaneled jurors who deliberate in a criminal case must be retained in the court file and made available to the public. Commonwealth v Fujita, 470 Mass 484, 486 (2015). In order to overcome the public right of access to judicial records, there must be a showing of good cause. In doing so, the judge must take into account all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the nature of the parties and the controversy, the type of information and the privacy interests involved, the extent of the community interest, and the reason for the request. There have been a significant number of posts in various social media platforms that have raised issues regarding various reactions to the deliberations in this case. There has been an individual who was arrested and charged with a violation of M.G.L. ch. 268 §13B, by surreptitiously video recording the jurors leaving the court. There have been identifications of jurors and their personal information without their permission, through other sources. At least one juror has requested that the order be extended indefinitely. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that the safety of jurors is crucial to the fair functioning of the judicial system, and that “the justice system owes them the highest degree of vigilance for their personal safety” Commonwealth v Silva, 448 Mass 701 (2007). Based on the circumstances of this trial and the fact that the case continues to receive daily, divisive attention in Massachusetts and beyond, the Court concludes that there is a real and present “risk of [personal] harm to the jurors [and] to the integrity of their service.” Id. Some of the empaneled jurors have come forward and spoken to the media after the declaration of a mistrial on September 4, 2026. However, the majority of the jurors, deliberating and alternatives, have maintained their anonymity, despite multiple requests to give statements. The Court concludes that there is a risk of immediate and irreparable injury should the list be made available to the public at this time. See Uniform Rules of Impoundment Procedure Rule 3(a). Consequently, the Court finds that good cause exists to extend the Impoundment Order, dated, until and unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This Order shall not preclude any juror from identifying himself or herself and/or from speaking to the public about his or her jury service. SO ORDERED WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN Justice of the Superior Court DATE: September 14, 2026