Three children — Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy — lost their lives on January 24, 2023.

They deserve the truth.

Lindsay Clancy’s trial has now ended in a mistrial after seven days of jury deliberations. Before Massachusetts decides whether to prosecute Lindsay again, we are asking for an independent review of important physical, medical, digital and first-responder evidence that deserves clearer answers.

This petition does not accuse Patrick Clancy or anyone else of killing the children. Nor does it claim that every apparent discrepancy proves wrongdoing.

It asks authorities to answer questions using the evidence.

1. Explain the CVS and ThreeV evidence.

Patrick testified about leaving the house to go to CVS for Pedia-Lax and then picking up food at ThreeV.

Images from the two locations raise questions about his appearance and footwear. What appear to be athletic shoes in one location and boots in another should be examined using the original surveillance recordings, rather than compressed photographs circulating online.

Patrick’s testimony concerning the CVS purchase also deserves comparison with the objective evidence. He testified about calling Lindsay and asking whether a generic product was acceptable. A trial photograph appears to show brand-name Pedia-Lax.

What does the actual CVS receipt show? What product was purchased? What do the original photographs and phone records establish?

These questions have answers.

2. Explain Lindsay’s body temperature of approximately 82°F.

Lindsay arrived for medical treatment with profound hypothermia.

An independent medical expert should determine whether that extraordinarily low temperature is consistent with the accepted timeline, considering her catastrophic spinal injuries, possible shock or blood loss, environmental exposure, clothing and emergency treatment.

We are not asking people on social media to interpret this number.

We are asking qualified experts to explain it.

3. Examine Callan’s complete medical timeline.

Eight-month-old Callan was transported for emergency medical treatment and did not die until January 27, three days after the incident.

His EMS and hospital records should be examined alongside the timeline to determine what can — and cannot — medically be established about when his injuries occurred.

The same review should determine what objective information was collected concerning the condition of all three children when first responders reached them.

4. Compare Patrick’s statements with what police, firefighters and EMTs actually observed.

This is one of the most important questions.

Patrick could communicate with investigators.

Lindsay could not.

She was catastrophically injured after going through the bedroom window and was unable to provide investigators with a meaningful account during the critical early stages of the investigation.

That makes the independent observations of police officers, firefighters and EMTs enormously important.

Where exactly was each child when first responders saw them?

What did responders observe around their necks?

What did dispatchers tell responders before they entered?

What did the first officers and EMTs document before the scene was disturbed by lifesaving efforts?

Which portions of the initial narrative originated with Patrick, and which were independently established?

The police reports, EMS records, dispatch communications, available recordings and sworn testimony should be compared directly with Patrick’s statements.

Where they agree, document it. Where they don’t, explain why.

5. Reconstruct the bedroom from the physical evidence.

The bedroom contained critical evidence concerning what happened to Lindsay before she went through the window.

The blood evidence, knife, clothing, medications or containers, window area, DNA and fingerprint testing should be independently reconstructed as a whole.

Where did Lindsay begin bleeding?

What do the blood patterns show?

What was recovered from the knife?

What was tested for DNA and fingerprints — and what wasn’t?

What potentially relevant evidence was never tested?

Do not begin with an assumption about what happened. Begin with the physical evidence and determine what it establishes.

6. Reconstruct January 24 minute by minute.

There is extensive objective evidence: surveillance video, receipts, phone activity, digital-device information, Apple Watch data, medical records, crime-scene photographs, forensic testing, dispatch records and first-responder observations.

Put all of it together.

Create an independent minute-by-minute timeline and ask one simple question:

Does all of the objective evidence fit the accepted reconstruction of that evening?

If it does, an independent review will strengthen confidence in the case.

If it doesn’t, those discrepancies must be investigated before another trial.

Why now?

Lindsay’s first trial ended without a verdict after weeks of testimony and seven days of deliberations.

A mistrial does not establish Lindsay’s innocence.

But another prosecution should not simply repeat the first trial without addressing legitimate questions raised by the evidence.

What We Are Asking

Before Massachusetts decides whether to prosecute Lindsay Clancy again, we respectfully request:

An independent review of the original investigation and all significant physical, medical, digital and first-responder evidence.

We ask that reviewers specifically examine the CVS and ThreeV evidence; reconstruct the complete timeline; compare Patrick’s statements with independent first-responder observations; obtain expert analysis of Lindsay’s profound hypothermia; review Callan’s complete medical timeline; reconstruct the bedroom evidence; and identify relevant evidence that was not tested or fully investigated.

We are not asking investigators to replace one assumption with another.

We are asking them to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Cora, Dawson and Callan deserve a complete accounting of what happened.

Lindsay deserves a justice system willing to examine evidence that may challenge its assumptions.

And the public deserves confidence that every significant question has been answered before another prosecution begins.

Before another trial, answer the unanswered questions.