Days after Lindsay Clancy mistrial, another Massachusetts mom

Two Massachusetts mothers, two dead children, and now two cases that are starting to feel less like justice and more like the court system stalling in plain sight. Days after the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we’re reading that Janette MacAusland’s lawyers are asking a judge to toss the case because prosecutors still don’t have the medical examiner’s findings. In a Wellesley murder case. That is not a small paperwork hiccup. That’s the backbone of the state’s proof.

Here’s the problem for everyone, no matter what you think happened in that home: a prosecution without basic forensic answers is not a prosecution. If the Commonwealth can’t tell the court what the medical examiner concluded, it can’t credibly demand that a defendant sit in limbo while headlines harden into “guilty” in the public mind. The state has a lot of power. It also has a duty to be ready when it uses it.

The Clancy mistrial already reminded us how messy these cases get when mental health, medication, and family tragedy collide. Now we’re watching prosecutors in another high-profile case admit they’re still waiting on a key report. This is how confidence breaks. It’s not just about one defendant’s rights, or one community’s grief. It’s about whether Massachusetts can run a serious courtroom process when the stakes are life and death.

If the medical examiner needs time, say that plainly and explain why. If the system is backed up, fix it. But don’t pretend “we’re still waiting” is a strategy. Either bring the evidence or stop wasting everyone’s time — the defendant’s, the victims’ relatives’, and the taxpayers’ who fund the whole thing.