Follow LIONEL on X: https://x.com/LionelMedia
From the beginning, I have been amazed by how difficult it has been for so many people to understand the remarkably simple burdens that govern the Tyler Robinson and Lindsay Clancy cases. These are very different prosecutions involving very different facts, defenses and legal questions, yet both have become buried beneath emotion, tribal loyalty, media narratives, internet personalities and endless speculation.
In Tyler Robinson’s case, the central question is ultimately evidentiary. The prosecution must prove the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That means proving identity, conduct and every required element with admissible evidence. Suspicion is not proof. A compelling narrative is not proof. A press conference is not proof. And believing that prosecutors probably have evidence somewhere is certainly not proof. Earlier proceedings may involve lower legal thresholds, but those thresholds should never be confused with the burden required for conviction.
Lindsay Clancy presents an entirely different problem. The question is not simply whether she was mentally ill, medicated, psychotic or receiving inadequate psychiatric care. Massachusetts criminal-responsibility law asks whether, because of mental disease or defect, she lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. Once properly raised, criminal responsibility becomes something the Commonwealth must establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
So why does everyone make this so complicated?
Because complexity creates television. Outrage creates clicks. Personalities create teams. And emotional arguments are much easier to sell than jury instructions.
In this discussion, I explain how two profoundly different cases became distorted by the same cultural problem. We increasingly substitute feelings for elements, narratives for evidence and commentators for courts.
