Re-Investigate the Lindsay Clancy Case: Demand an Independent Audit of Evidence
Re-Investigate the Lindsay Clancy Case: Demand an Independent Audit of Evidence
The Issue
PETITION TARGETS
Governor Maura Healey, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We, the undersigned citizens, legal professionals, and advocates for procedural justice, formally petition Governor Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell to exercise their constitutional and statutory oversight authority to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor and initiate a full administrative review of the homicide investigation conducted by the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office and assigned State Police detectives in the Lindsay Clancy case.
An investigation involving the deaths of three children requires the highest standard of forensic rigor. It demands that law enforcement systematically consider and eliminate alternative hypotheses, verify critical timelines through objective digital data wherever reasonably available, and remain free from confirmation bias. A thorough review of the record raises significant questions regarding investigative omissions, unverified timeline gaps, and selective forensic extractions that warrant independent examination.
To protect public confidence in the Commonwealth’s criminal justice system, an independent state-level review is urgently required.
KEY INVESTIGATIVE DEFICIENCIES REQUIRING INDEPENDENT REVIEW
1. Failure to Verify Critical Timelines via Objective Digital Telematics
The prosecution’s narrative relies on an uncorroborated, estimated departure time of approximately 5:15 PM for key individuals present at the scene immediately before the crime occurred.
The Gap: Investigators accepted rough verbal estimates rather than extracting objective, granular background location data (such as Apple/Google Location Services, Wi-Fi router connection logs, or onboard vehicle telematics).
The Concern: In a complex homicide investigation, critical timelines should be corroborated wherever objective physical or digital evidence is reasonably available. Leaving a 17-to-20-minute movement window unverified by potentially available digital evidence represents an investigative gap that warrants independent review.
2. Ignoring Contradictory Digital Evidence & Timeline Anomalies
During trial cross-examination, evidence revealed that a work-related email was transmitted from a home laptop at 5:24 PM—directly contradicting the state’s established departure timeline of approximately 5:15 PM.
The Concern: Investigators should have reconciled how digital activity occurred on-site nearly ten minutes after the alleged departure time and determined whether that evidence affected the established timeline. An independent review should determine whether this digital artifact was adequately investigated and incorporated into the reconstruction of the relevant time frame.
3. Selective Forensic Extractions (Target-Building vs. Neutral Evidence Gathering)
Proper digital evidence extraction should gather and preserve relevant data neutrally so that investigators can establish the complete factual picture of a crime scene.
The Concern: State Police digital forensics units extracted device data that supported a pre-conceived narrative of premeditation while failing to highlight or analyze concurrent searches on the same devices regarding severe medical distress, medication side effects, and hallucinations. Furthermore, critical search histories were initially attributed to primary targets before cross-examination established they occurred on devices used by other parties.
These circumstances warrant an independent examination of whether confirmation bias affected the collection, attribution, or interpretation of the digital evidence.
4. Inherent Conflict of Interest in Self-Review
Because the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office directed the initial investigation and prosecution, it faces an inherent institutional conflict of interest in neutrally auditing its own investigative work. Public integrity requires an outside entity with no stake in the original indictment to review the complete, unredacted investigative file.
A NOTE ON THE PURPOSE OF THIS PETITION
This petition does not ask the Governor, Attorney General, or public to substitute their judgment for that of the jury. It asks for an independent examination of whether the evidence was collected, preserved, attributed, and interpreted through a complete and unbiased investigative process.
An independent review should be capable of supporting the existing investigation if the evidence and investigative methods withstand scrutiny, or identifying deficiencies if they do not. The purpose is transparency, accountability, and confidence that the complete evidentiary record has been properly examined.
FORMAL DEMANDS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION
We respectfully request that state leadership immediately execute the following procedural actions:
1. Invoke M.G.L. c. 12, § 6 (AG Superseding Authority):
We call on Attorney General Andrea Campbell to exercise her statutory authority to assume jurisdiction over the case file, conduct a comprehensive audit of the digital and physical evidence, and determine whether unpursued leads remain.
2. Appoint an Independent Special Prosecutor:
We call on Governor Maura Healey to appoint a Special Prosecutor—completely unaffiliated with Plymouth County—to independently review and, where warranted, re-investigate the homicide, re-examine relevant unextracted telematics, and ensure all potential investigative avenues have been thoroughly evaluated.
3. EOPSS Forensic Audit:
We request that the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security conduct a formal review of the digital extraction and timeline-verification methodologies utilized by the State Police Detective Unit in this matter to determine whether appropriate forensic standards were followed and whether additional evidence should have been collected or examined.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Justice is not served when law enforcement rushes to build a case against a single individual while leaving fundamental timeline questions or potentially relevant evidence insufficiently examined. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve a justice system that is thorough, objective, and unwavering in its pursuit of the complete truth.
An independent audit does not presume guilt or innocence. It asks a simpler and more fundamental question:
Was every relevant piece of evidence properly collected, preserved, attributed, investigated, and presented?
If the answer is yes, an independent review should help demonstrate that. If the answer is no, the public deserves to know.
Sign this petition to demand an independent, uncompromised review of the evidence.
309
The Issue
PETITION TARGETS
Governor Maura Healey, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We, the undersigned citizens, legal professionals, and advocates for procedural justice, formally petition Governor Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell to exercise their constitutional and statutory oversight authority to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor and initiate a full administrative review of the homicide investigation conducted by the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office and assigned State Police detectives in the Lindsay Clancy case.
An investigation involving the deaths of three children requires the highest standard of forensic rigor. It demands that law enforcement systematically consider and eliminate alternative hypotheses, verify critical timelines through objective digital data wherever reasonably available, and remain free from confirmation bias. A thorough review of the record raises significant questions regarding investigative omissions, unverified timeline gaps, and selective forensic extractions that warrant independent examination.
To protect public confidence in the Commonwealth’s criminal justice system, an independent state-level review is urgently required.
KEY INVESTIGATIVE DEFICIENCIES REQUIRING INDEPENDENT REVIEW
1. Failure to Verify Critical Timelines via Objective Digital Telematics
The prosecution’s narrative relies on an uncorroborated, estimated departure time of approximately 5:15 PM for key individuals present at the scene immediately before the crime occurred.
The Gap: Investigators accepted rough verbal estimates rather than extracting objective, granular background location data (such as Apple/Google Location Services, Wi-Fi router connection logs, or onboard vehicle telematics).
The Concern: In a complex homicide investigation, critical timelines should be corroborated wherever objective physical or digital evidence is reasonably available. Leaving a 17-to-20-minute movement window unverified by potentially available digital evidence represents an investigative gap that warrants independent review.
2. Ignoring Contradictory Digital Evidence & Timeline Anomalies
During trial cross-examination, evidence revealed that a work-related email was transmitted from a home laptop at 5:24 PM—directly contradicting the state’s established departure timeline of approximately 5:15 PM.
The Concern: Investigators should have reconciled how digital activity occurred on-site nearly ten minutes after the alleged departure time and determined whether that evidence affected the established timeline. An independent review should determine whether this digital artifact was adequately investigated and incorporated into the reconstruction of the relevant time frame.
3. Selective Forensic Extractions (Target-Building vs. Neutral Evidence Gathering)
Proper digital evidence extraction should gather and preserve relevant data neutrally so that investigators can establish the complete factual picture of a crime scene.
The Concern: State Police digital forensics units extracted device data that supported a pre-conceived narrative of premeditation while failing to highlight or analyze concurrent searches on the same devices regarding severe medical distress, medication side effects, and hallucinations. Furthermore, critical search histories were initially attributed to primary targets before cross-examination established they occurred on devices used by other parties.
These circumstances warrant an independent examination of whether confirmation bias affected the collection, attribution, or interpretation of the digital evidence.
4. Inherent Conflict of Interest in Self-Review
Because the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office directed the initial investigation and prosecution, it faces an inherent institutional conflict of interest in neutrally auditing its own investigative work. Public integrity requires an outside entity with no stake in the original indictment to review the complete, unredacted investigative file.
A NOTE ON THE PURPOSE OF THIS PETITION
This petition does not ask the Governor, Attorney General, or public to substitute their judgment for that of the jury. It asks for an independent examination of whether the evidence was collected, preserved, attributed, and interpreted through a complete and unbiased investigative process.
An independent review should be capable of supporting the existing investigation if the evidence and investigative methods withstand scrutiny, or identifying deficiencies if they do not. The purpose is transparency, accountability, and confidence that the complete evidentiary record has been properly examined.
FORMAL DEMANDS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION
We respectfully request that state leadership immediately execute the following procedural actions:
1. Invoke M.G.L. c. 12, § 6 (AG Superseding Authority):
We call on Attorney General Andrea Campbell to exercise her statutory authority to assume jurisdiction over the case file, conduct a comprehensive audit of the digital and physical evidence, and determine whether unpursued leads remain.
2. Appoint an Independent Special Prosecutor:
We call on Governor Maura Healey to appoint a Special Prosecutor—completely unaffiliated with Plymouth County—to independently review and, where warranted, re-investigate the homicide, re-examine relevant unextracted telematics, and ensure all potential investigative avenues have been thoroughly evaluated.
3. EOPSS Forensic Audit:
We request that the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security conduct a formal review of the digital extraction and timeline-verification methodologies utilized by the State Police Detective Unit in this matter to determine whether appropriate forensic standards were followed and whether additional evidence should have been collected or examined.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Justice is not served when law enforcement rushes to build a case against a single individual while leaving fundamental timeline questions or potentially relevant evidence insufficiently examined. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve a justice system that is thorough, objective, and unwavering in its pursuit of the complete truth.
An independent audit does not presume guilt or innocence. It asks a simpler and more fundamental question:
Was every relevant piece of evidence properly collected, preserved, attributed, investigated, and presented?
If the answer is yes, an independent review should help demonstrate that. If the answer is no, the public deserves to know.
Sign this petition to demand an independent, uncompromised review of the evidence.
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on August 27, 2026