Just Jelli

Critique on Clancy performance (and a cocktail)

There’s a cocktail for you at the end of this if you get through the legal stuff. Personal brownie points if you actually read through to said cocktail. I’m about to spend a whole lot of time lambasting the prosecution in the Lindsay Clancy case, so the hope is the in-between reading is actually entertaining. 

First: respect where respect is due. Becoming a lawyer is tough shit – mentally, emotionally, and physically. Being a prosecutor and subjected to the worst of humanity is even harder and more awful. Shanan Buckingham and *Attorney* Jennifer Sprague had to deal with additional bullshit because they are women. (Anyone who says women lawyers don’t deal with bullshit from male colleagues is either not paying attention, doesn’t care, or lying). 

There is where the respect ends. 

Buckingham and Sprague managed to so egregiously bumblefuck a triple homicide case where the accused agrees she committed the acts, that the general public believes someone other than the accused committed the acts.

Let that sink in. 

How could a 15-year and 22-year lawyer fuck this up so incredibly bad? Let’s start at the beginning. 

1. The District Attorney Brought a First-Degree Murder Charge 

And he decided to do so against someone with an overwhelming medical history  of severe and deteriorating mental conditions. Timothy Cruz is this idiot’s name. Most news outlets (who consult with legal experts) agree Buckingham and Sprague did the best they could with what they had, suggesting what they had was a steaming pile of shit. I disagree they did the “best” that they could, but we’ll get there. 

This should NEVER have been brought as a first degree murder charge. This NEVER should have gone to trial. Clancy should have been indefinitely committed to a state mental facility. There was NO evidence of motive; NO evidence of malice; and incredibly weak evidence of premeditation. 

The evidence is undisputed that Clancy was a good, caring, hardworking mother who loved her job as a labor and delivery nurse, and who loved her children. The evidence is undisputed that Clancy attempted on multiple occasions to seek help for a deteriorating mental condition; and that she was improperly diagnosed and improperly medicated, which improper medication exacerbated her underlying condition. 

There is NO explanation as to WHY Clancy did this other than that she was suffering from a psychotic break. 

Trust, the DA looks at all of this before deciding to bring the charge; and he brought it anyway. I saw a news correspondent opine that the DA would have gotten immense public backlash had they not brought a first degree charge. 

First of all, probably not. 

Second of all, so the fuck what? Oh, you afraid your little fee fees are gonna get hurt by the troglodyte unwashed masses who used to huff glue and eat Tide pods?

The fuck?

How about…and hear me out…we charge people based on the pure factual evidence? And for those who argue that the grand jury heard the evidence and chose to indict her; recall, it is entirely one-sided. The DA presents the evidence to the grand jury in the way the DA wants. 

The DA knew or should have known that the evidence would have born out that Clancy did not plan to kill her kids because she was “tired” of being a mother (actual theory in the prosecution’s case, by the way). He did it because he wants as many convictions under his over-sized belt as he can because I guess convictions means you’re a good prosecutor. 

Get so fucked. 

These are peoples’ lives. Not tools to win reelection.

2. The Prosecution’s Theme

Was almost incoherent. There were maybe two sentences that, when put together, made any kind of sense. The prosecution’s theme was that Clancy was overly controlling; lost control, either because she had to go back to work, or because they laid off their nanny; got sad, and wanted her kids to go with her when she made the selfish decision to kill herself. 

Actually, never mind. That makes no fucking sense. 

If she “lost control,” how does that not feed into the defense’s psychotic break theory? If she hated her kids, why did she want to take them with her? If she didn’t hate her kids, why’d she kill them? If she was manipulative and calculating, how’d she “lose” control and kill her kids? 

They had no reasonable, sensical, logical, cohesive theme. No one understood why the prosecution thought Lindsay killed her kids. Contrast that with the defense’s theory. While we won’t ever know whether it’s actually true or not; it makes fucking sense. 

3. Prosecution’s Witnesses Contradicted Prosecution’s Theme

The prosecution was trying to paint Clancy as a selfish, manipulative, calculating person, but THEIR witnesses completely contradicted this theory. By ALL accounts, Clancy was a loving, caring, kind, patient person – mother and nurse. Nothing about what any of the prosecution’s character witnesses said even came close to getting to what the prosecution was arguing. 

The prosecution attempted to paint Clancy as a doctor shopper; but all of the medical fact witnesses testified Clancy minimized her symptoms. Someone doctor shopping for more drugs should be exaggerating her symptoms for more meds, no? 

Relatedly, Lindsay didn’t even finish the meds she was prescribed. This is inconsistent with doctor shopping. 

4. Prosecution Threw Spaghetti at the Wall to See what Stuck

This is the sloppiest, most disingenuous, abhorrent, blatantly desperate way to practice law. You’re supposed to have a reason to sue or charge someone. You’re not supposed to shove your hand in a box and grab whatever your fat little fingers hit first. 

So, first, the prosecution claimed Clancy was evil (manipulative, selfish, calculating). When that didn’t work, they claimed she was doctor shopping to chase a high. When the medical providers and character witnesses confirmed Clancy was hesitant to take the meds prescribed, the prosecution claimed Lindsay was a bad patient, and her laxness exacerbated the psychotic break they claimed never occurred. 

They made huge deals out of chicken nuggets (were they even nuggets?), lemonade, and beach body workout routine. They claimed Clancy’s smiling, looking at her iPhone and wheeling her chair down the hallways of the mental institution at which she is committed was not consistent with someone who killed her kids. In other words, her mere existence was inconsistent with her actions. 

They misrepresented evidence by claiming the band were never “tied” around the children’s necks, in an attempt to establish Clancy’s atrocity and cruelty in sitting there holding the bands around the necks for minutes. They had a Honey-Boo-Boo-sized temper tantrum when the defense’s expert witness said the bands were secured around the necks and that it only took 5-10 seconds to cause unconsciousness. 

They brought religion into it. 

Twice. 

For no fucking reason other than to appeal to the religious beliefs of the jury. 

They claimed Clancy faked her suicide attempt…because that makes sense, right? Instead of simply divorcing Patrick or pulling a Sherri Papini, she killed her kids and faked her suicide for the purpose of pleading insanity in the imminent murder trial? WHAT? 

They claimed Clancy was told to tell her husband and chaplain that she was hearing voices. In a hospital bed. After coding. After trying to kill herself. 

They claimed the trial was not about mental health. 

Then they claimed Clancy did have a severe mental disorder, but that she was still able to determine right from wrong (AFTER, by the way, their own expert testified as much)

5. The Prosecution’s Demeanor was Disgusting

I am aware of the stereotypes plaguing female lawyers. Buckingham and Sprague embodied every. Single. One of them. So not only were these women wholly ineffective advocates, but they set back women’s forward momentum within the legal field at large. 

When they weren’t wholly lacking in any affect, they were shrill, petty, bitchy, catty, and snakey.  They were robotic with the character witnesses and all the other unappealing things I list above with everyone else. Their tone was SO condescending. Their questioning was fucking petty. Spending five minutes drilling a psychologist on the beach body exercise thing? Are you fucking serious? Highlighting what can be reasonably characterized as LC simply existing on the birthdays of her dead children and anniversary of their deaths, and unreasonably characterizing it as apathetic? Oh my GOD – she smiled? How DARE?!

The temper tantrum with Dr. Laprosata? Not only bringing up Resnik’s book about how to effectively testify as an expert, but mischaracterizing it? For those who don’t know, Resnik authored a book about how to effectively testify as a medical expert, which included not volunteering information that is not elicited on the stand. Sprague characterized this as concealing evidence. 

That is the same fucking advice every single litigator – criminal or civil – gives their clients and their witnesses. I have provided that same advice countless times. She knew that. And she knew the jury wouldn’t know that. It was fucking gross. 

Implying LC didn’t like one of her children, so singled him out and killed him first. 

Implying the suicide attempt was fake, and she Spidermanned her way down the side of the house.

Implying she lied about the voices (was told to tell others she heard voices)

Implying the FUCKING CHAPLAIN lied about the voices??!!

Huh????

Completely ignoring the blatant inconsistencies between their opening and closing as well as those amongst their own fucking witnesses? Just glossing over their woeful failures and hoping the jury forgot?

A fucking UNICORN? 

All of it. The whole thing. Throw it in rice. 

6. Buckingham’s Woeful Inability to Speak 

I lost count of the amount of times I had to rewind Buckingham’s questioning because I couldn’t understand what she was trying to fucking say. She tried to be formal and fancy, but ended up vomiting word salad with “um” croutons.

For fuck’s sake. 

I also lost count of the amount of times she began sentences with “are you aware.” Girl. Thesauruses exist. Open one. 

7. The Leading Questions

This deserves its own section, because holy shit. The prosecution did not direct examine a single fucking witness. Wholly objectionable their entire case in chief. 

They controlled the story throughout the entire trial – likely because if they didn’t, they’d lose faster than they are now (jury is currently still deliberating as of 2:23 p.m. on this fine Tuesday, September 1, 2026). And note: despite controlling the narrative, their own witnesses still provided testimony wholly contradicting the prosecution’s theme. 

8. Honorable Mention: Choice of Experts

Mack has since resigned (read: offered the opportunity to resign). If that doesn’t tell you something about how the prosecution ran their case, re-read the above. Mack was deplorable. Heilbrun was better, but relied on old articles from the defense’s star witness. So not only was this guy a Resnik groupie, but he failed to ensure his sources were up to date. Rookie move. 

And, lets not forget Heilbrun’s mention of mortal sins *again*. Best believe that was calculated. The prosecution played plausible deniability (it wasn’t plausible. It was pretty clear they coached him to fall on the sword so they could throw that stink bomb in the jury box, pieces of shit). 

That last guy? The one who had to buffer for 30 seconds before answering any of Reddington’s questions? Holy shit. There was discourse about whether the guy had a speech impediment; but if he did, the prosecution should have brought that out on direct to both explain the buffering and to save this guy from the embarrassment of Reddington’s closing. And that’s the least of the issues with the prosecution’s last witness. 

Bro had NO fucking idea what he was saying. His focus was terrorism and negotiations. 

You best believe Dr. Resnik and Dr. Zeizel are not the only humans in this whole wide world with expertise in post-partum issues. My guess is the prosecution simply could not find any *qualified* experts to say what they needed them to say. 

Which was why they pulled from Park Deitz’s firm. You know…the same fuckass quack who fabricated evidence for the purpose of convicting Andrea Yates? Yeah. That guy. 

Conclusion

This was a shit case for the prosecution from the outset – legally and culturally. They saw three dead babies and thought it was the key to an easy win. Even though Buckingham and Sprague didn’t choose this case or the charge, they chose the way to prosecute it; and they chose wrong. 

Their handling of this case has resulted in an entire nation’s vilification. I’m mad about it. I’m mad they made – not just women lawyers – lawyers at large look every bit the scumbags pop culture thinks we are. 

Thank FUCK for Reddington. He has single-handedly – and I think effectively – rebutted the field-wide disgust Buckingham and Sprague have sloshed all over our hard-earned career. And this is not me falling at Reddington’s feet like some sort of Masshole Jesus (I mean, dude’s a good lawyer, and he makes me laugh, but he ain’t a Jedi). 

I hope Sprague and Buckingham are paying attention  and internalizing the public backlash. I hope they cry about it at night. Best yet: I hope they fucking retire. What embarrassments. 

COCKTAIL TIME

You stayed this long. I hope it was worth it. But if not, check out this tasty tasty alcoholic treat:

Cherry Lime Margarita

1.5 oz. Blanco Tequila

0.5 oz. Elderflower liquor

0.5 oz. Rose syrup

Juice of 1/2 lime

1 oz. Tart cherry juice (see? Healthy AF)

You know the drill: pour everything into a shaker with ice and shake 12-15 seconds. Strain into glass of choice. Extra points for red solo cups. Add a pinch of salt to make it exponentially better.