“NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KEEP HER BEHIND BARS” — LAWYER MAKES SHOCK BID TO DISMISS CASE AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS MOM

JANETTE MACAUSLAND IS ACCUSED OF KILLING HER TWO YOUNG CHILDREN — BUT HER ATTORNEY IS NOW ASKING A JUDGE TO THROW OUT THE CASE AND RELEASE HER

A Massachusetts mother accused of killing her two young children has made a stunning new move in court.

Janette MacAusland’s attorney is asking a judge to dismiss the case and release her from custody, arguing that there is not enough information to justify keeping her behind bars.

The request came Thursday as prosecutors continued waiting for the medical examiner’s official determination regarding the deaths of MacAusland’s children, 7-year-old Kai and 6-year-old Ella.

But the judge rejected the defense request.

MacAusland will remain behind bars without bail as the case moves forward.

A MOTHER, TWO CHILDREN — AND A CASE THAT SHOCKED WELLESLEY

MacAusland, 49, of Wellesley, Massachusetts, is facing two first-degree murder charges in connection with the deaths of her children.

Police discovered the children at the family’s home in April.

Authorities had already begun investigating after MacAusland allegedly arrived at her aunt’s home in Vermont with wounds to her neck.

According to a Vermont police report cited by the New York Post, MacAusland allegedly told officers that she had strangled the children before trying to take her own life.

She allegedly said she wanted the three of them to be “with God.”

Those statements are part of the allegations against her and have not been tested at trial.

MacAusland has pleaded not guilty.

NOW HER LAWYER WANTS THE CASE DISMISSED

On Thursday, defense attorney Joseph Krowski Jr. made an extraordinary request.

He argued that prosecutors did not have enough information to justify continuing to hold MacAusland in custody and asked the judge to dismiss the case.

The request came as prosecutors acknowledged that a key piece of evidence was still pending: the medical examiner’s determination of the manner and means of the children’s deaths.

According to Court TV, prosecutors said the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner had not yet completed that determination and expected it within the next few weeks.

The judge ultimately rejected the defense request.

MacAusland therefore remains detained without bail.

THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S FINDING COULD MATTER

The delay has become an important part of the latest court proceedings.

Prosecutors told the court they were not ready to proceed with the probable-cause hearing because the medical examiner had not yet finalized its determination.

Judge Jeanmarie Carroll reportedly expressed frustration over the delay and indicated that she expected the matter to be treated as a priority.

Until the official findings are completed, some critical questions surrounding the children’s deaths remain unresolved in the public record.

A CUSTODY BATTLE WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY

The case also unfolded against the backdrop of a bitter family dispute.

MacAusland and her husband, Samuel, had been involved in a contentious custody battle before the children were found.

Court records and reporting indicate that the couple’s marriage had deteriorated, with a divorce filing preceding the April tragedy.

A guardian had also been appointed in the custody dispute shortly before the children’s deaths, according to reporting cited by the New York Post.

People who knew MacAusland previously described her as a loving and devoted mother, making the allegations especially difficult for those who knew the family.

“THIS IS NOT LINDSAY CLANCY 2.0”

The case has also drawn comparisons to another Massachusetts prosecution that has dominated national headlines.

Following the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, MacAusland’s attorney pushed back against attempts to portray the two cases as identical.

Krowski reportedly told reporters that “this is not Lindsay Clancy 2.0.”

The comparison is understandable: both cases involve Massachusetts mothers accused of harming their children and both have raised questions about mental health and criminal responsibility.

But legally, they remain separate cases with different evidence and different circumstances.

Clancy’s criminal trial ended in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Her defense has since asked the judge to find her not guilty, while prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek a retrial.

THE QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN

For MacAusland, the immediate question is whether prosecutors will be able to move the case forward once the medical examiner’s findings are complete.

For the families involved, the larger questions are even more difficult.

What happened inside the Wellesley home?

What led to the deaths of Kai and Ella?

And what role, if any, did the ongoing family conflict and MacAusland’s reported mental-health history play in the events leading up to the tragedy?

Those questions will ultimately have to be addressed through evidence and court proceedings — not speculation.

For now, MacAusland remains charged, has pleaded not guilty, and is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

THE CASE IS NOT OVER — AND THE NEXT COURT HEARING COULD BRING NEW ANSWERS.