FAKE TEARS? Reacting to Lindsay Clancy Prosecutor Opening

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Today, we are shifting gears. For the first time in a very long time, we have not done anything other than Karen Reed. Well, today, folks, we are going to cover Lindsay Clancy, the opening statement for the prosecution this afternoon, and this evening, the opening statement for the defense. Without further ado, let's dive right into it. It doesn't say anything new. You must follow the law. He was present, so I think he can answer whether or not it happened or not. Have you had any conversation with the prosecutor? I could say the same thing by taking Amber Heard as a client. Mentative, don't you think? Oh, hardly. Are you able to estimate of those thousand different types of cases dealing with acts of the reconstruction? [00:00:43] Speaker 2: We're not with the jury present. Have you reached the verdict? We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. [00:00:55] Speaker 1: Well, hello, everybody, and welcome back to Buckle Up. It is the law with Attorney Larry Foreman and Law Kitty. She has decided to join me for a portion of this trial. Folks, this is a heavy one. This is a tough one, but it's absolutely magnificent. You do not want to miss the opening statement for the prosecution in Lindsay Clancy's case in Massachusetts, of all places. This is also being tried in Massachusetts in a different circuit. So, you're not going to see the familiar judge, but you are going to see some familiar bailiffs from the Karen Reed trial, the Aidan Carney prosecution, etc. So, you're going to see some familiar faces, but the prosecutor is different, and, of course, the defense attorney and the judge, like I said, are different. Pay attention to the storytelling ability of this prosecutor. I mean, it is just nothing short of magnificent. The way that she tells the story, short, succinct, direct, no bull crap. I was in awe as I was listening and commentating on this segment. Cold. It was a cold watch, by the way. I am recording this intro after the video is done, so I know what you're about to see. But what you're about to see is a cold watch of the opening of the prosecution. And later this evening, we're going to do the opening for the defense. So, don't forget to like this video, comment below, subscribe to the channel, and let's get right in with it. [00:02:38] Speaker 2: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Cora. She had just turned five. She was sweet, silly, smart. She loved sparkly dresses and wearing bows in her hair. She loved princesses and baby dolls. She even tried to convince her preschool teachers at the beginning that her name was Sophia because she loved the Disney character Sophia the first so very much. Dawson. He was three. A boy's boy. He was a bit rambunctious, but funny, full of energy. He loved trucks. Construction trucks, fire trucks. And he spoke with a raspy little voice. Callan. Callan was just eight months old. Always smiling with chunky cheeks. A sweet little baby. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, because they are not. They were strangled deliberately and meticulously killed by this defendant on January 24th of 2023. [00:03:56] Speaker 1: Okay. Can I just say that is a very powerful way to open painting a picture of the children that she had that are no longer with us because of her actions to the jury, the ages of the children, a little bit about them to kind of humanize them, to give them life, even though they're not with us anymore, so that they're not just going to be some name with an age. Well, you now know a little bit about them. And when you know a little bit about an individual, even if they're not with us anymore, it kind of humanizes them a little bit. And so the prosecution is breathing life into the three kids. And by the way, what is up with Lindsay's fake crocodile tears? She is not crying. Okay. This is some Amber Heard crap. There is no remorse. She did this deliberately, it seems to me. Now, I could be wrong, but just watching her body language as the camera pivoted to her as the prosecution was doing her opening, I feel nothing looking at her. She just closed her eyes and she's using the napkin and I'm not buying it. Not buying it, lady. I'm sorry. Not sorry. [00:05:02] Speaker 2: That's what I believe. One by one, she wrapped exercise bands around each one of the kids' necks and pulled until their little bodies were limp and lifeless. First Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callie. Your job, ladies and gentlemen, is not easy in this case. The evidence will be difficult to see, to hear, to process, testimony of witnesses, family, friends, teachers, people who knew the Clancy family, people who saw them regularly, people who saw them on the day in which this defendant killed them. They're all going to come before you. And it may be heartbreaking to hear what they have to say. You'll see photographs of the crime scene. You'll hear testimony from first responders. They're going to tell you about what they discovered when they came into the Clancy home at 47 Summer Street in Duxbury on January 24th. You'll hear evidence about the defendant during that time period, observations of her physical appearance, her demeanor. You'll hear testimony about what she was reporting to her friends and family and doctors during this time period. The list of witnesses is quite long. Law enforcement, firefighters, friends, family, teachers, crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, toxicologists, medical examiners, experts. We expect over the next few weeks that you will be able to or will be able to present to you a clear picture of what was occurring in the Clancy household on January 24th of 2023. We ask that you keep an open mind when you're hearing this evidence. And during the course of the trial, don't forget that you use your common sense and your life experience. Those are things that you bring us jurors to the courtroom every day. And it's what's going to take you into the deliberation room at the end of this trial. So what happened? [00:07:15] Speaker 1: Okay, lady, don't forget to remind them that your standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the defense will do it for you. You can't just lower the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt to common sense. Prosecutors love to do this. They love to try and lower the bar. I've seen very, very smart prosecutors that I've been up against personally, where they'll say, don't leave your common sense at the door. Yes, our standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And we will prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt immediately after they say, don't leave your common sense at the door. And that's very powerful. When you leave it open like this, it opens up the door for the defense, which I've also done. We'll see if the defense will do it in this case, that when you lower the bar to common sense, don't forget that it's beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, the real standard here. But we'll see. Let's see how it unfolds. Let's hear the story. Have you been injured in an accident? Have you been hurt by a doctor? Have you suffered from a dog bite? Have you lost a loved one due to someone else's negligence? Call us. 1-844-774-HURT. Get a trial lawyer to get you the most money you deserve. On January 24, 2023, it had recently snowed. It was [00:08:24] Speaker 2: in fact a Tuesday. Tuesdays were days that Cora and Dawson usually went to preschool. They attended the Learning Sprouts preschool in Duxbury, but they didn't attend on Tuesdays. So on this day, they were home. On this particular day, Cora, who had just turned five, had an appointment at the doctor's, an annual checkup. And so the defendant brought her first thing in the morning to the doctor's. Defendant's husband, Patrick Clancy, was home and he was caring for Callen and Dawson, while defendant took Cora to the doctor. Pretty normal. You'll hear and see that Patrick and the defendant exchanged text messages that morning. Patrick sends a photo of Dawson, who had just dressed himself that day and he was jumping for joy. And he sends that text to the defendant while she's at the doctor. And while at the doctor, the defendant sends a text of Cora and her little Johnny and mask to Patrick. When the defendant and Cora returned home that morning, Patrick went downstairs to his basement office to do work. They made it as he had normally done on any other day since returning from paternity leave. And then the defendant was charged with caring for the kids for the rest of the day. She put Callen down for a nap, bundled up Cora and Dawson, took them outside to the backyard and played in the snow. They built a snowman. The defendant sent pictures of the snowman and the kids in the snow to Patrick when he's working in the basement and her mom, who was living in Connecticut, who had just been there that weekend, but had gone home. The day proceeds as normal. You'll hear Patrick describe it as a good day, actually. In the late afternoon, around 4 p.m., the defendant searched on her phone for Kids Marilax. She searched "Takeout 3B" and she opened the Apple Maps on her phone and searched the route that it would take to get from their house to the 3B restaurant in Plymouth. She searched how much time and how far it was. Now, this restaurant had been a place that the family had eaten before, but wasn't their normal takeout spot. She also called CVS and asked them about the kids' Pedialax or Miralax. And that's because at the doctor earlier that day, the doctor had recommended a laxative Procora because she had some stomach issues. She had complained of an upset tummy at school the day before, you'll hear. She had some issues where she didn't like to go to the bathroom at school, a little bit embarrassed, so they suggested the PELX. So she calls CVS and she confirms that they actually have it at their local CVS in Kingston. The picture that she's painting, folks, I have to say, [00:11:24] Speaker 1: is quite terrifying so far. If I'm a juror sitting there listening to these facts, we know what's about to happen. But, you know, you would expect some chaos, maybe something amiss, some fight, some discombobulation that day that triggered Lindsay and made her do these horrendous things. You know, it makes you think that this woman is a complete psychopath and she's just been hiding it this whole time. That's what it's starting to sound like. She was taking her daughter to the doctor, she is planning her route to pick up food later that day, and all of a sudden something just snaps, right? The husband is in the basement working like any other day. The kids are off from school that day. Like, I am just, I am mesmerized by this opening. It is so powerful, so telling. The description, like, how does she know all of these things, by the way? The text messages and all of that. Like that. Well, you will see tomorrow, as we start covering the witnesses, the first witness is going to be the husband, we're being told. And so, by the time you see this, he will have already testified. And like I said, we will cover his testimony tomorrow. Today, we're doing both openings for the prosecution and the defense. And this is just, I'm at the edge of my seat, you know, metaphorically speaking. Because it is a very captivating, very powerful opening so far. [00:12:59] Speaker 2: Then she sends a text to Patrick and asks if he wants to get takeout, if 3V is okay. She didn't feel like cooking dinner. It was a long day. He says, sure. She calls in the order. When Patrick leaves the house around 5:15 that evening, everything is normal, seems normal. He sees Dawson eating chicken nuggets and green beans on the couch before he walks out the door. Patrick leaves to go to 3V and he's going to stop at CVS on the way there. That's when the clock starts, ladies and gentlemen. The defendant knows that Patrick has to stop at CVS, go to 3V. She knows that it's about five miles from their house to get to the restaurant. She knows approximately how much time she has for him to go there and come back. She then takes the children down into the basement. She separates Dawson from Cora and Callan. And then she proceeds to wrap exercise bands around each child's neck and pull until they're dead. She leaves the bands wrapped around each child's neck and goes back upstairs. In the kitchen, she gets a knife and then she proceeds to the second floor of the home. In the middle of this, she misses a call from Patrick. He's at CVS. She misses the call. She calls him right back and they talk for 14 seconds. Nothing that she does or says in that phone call is of concern to Patrick. He proceeds on his task and she proceeds with hers. She goes to the second floor master bedroom, locks the door, crushes up some pills, and attempts to take her own life. She uses the knife she got in the kitchen to slash her wrists and her neck. She moves the bed away from the wall, away from the window. She opens that window and goes out. She lands on the cold, hard ground. Shortly thereafter, around 6 p.m., Patrick comes home. He's got the takeout bag and the CVS bag with the medicine. He enters into the house through the mudroom door into the kitchen area, places the bags down, eerily quiet. He calls to the kids. No answer. He calls to the defendant. No answer. He takes out his phone and dials the number for Lindsey's phone, defendant's phone. No answer. He then goes upstairs and finds the master bedroom door locked. He opens it and enters the room, sees blood, and the window open. He then goes to the backyard and that's where he finds the defendant. He's on the ground outside that window, moaning and mumbling. At 6:11 p.m., he calls 911 for help. First responders arrive to the home almost immediately. He's still on the phone with 911 when the responders arrive and they go right to the backyard and tend immediately to the defendant. While they're with the defendant, Patrick tells the first responders, "I need to find my kids." He had asked the defendant where the kids were and she told them they were in the basement. So when he went in the house, that's the first place he went, down into the basement. He's still on the phone with 911 when he finds each child with an exercise band still wrapped around their neck. He screams for help and he says she killed the kids. Efforts made to resuscitate Cora and Dawson were futile, but first responders from Duxbury and the surrounding communities were persistent and they kept trying to resuscitate them all the way to the hospital. But when they arrived at the hospital, there was nothing more that medical staff could do for Cora and Dawson. The staff at Beth Israel were able to get a heartbeat on Callan, but he never started breathing on his own. He never regained consciousness. He had no brain activity. Nonetheless, he was transferred to Boston Children's Hospital where he died three days later on January 27th. The defendant was taken to South Shore Hospital and then transported subsequently to Brigham and Women's in Boston. She had multiple traumas including spinal injuries as well as superficial injuries to both her wrists and her neck. She is paralyzed. We expect during the course of this trial that you'll hear the defendant made claims that either right after Patrick left the house or after he called her from the CVS, depending on which version of the events she's telling, she heard a voice. A male voice. A voice that she had never heard before. A voice that she never heard again. And that voice told her that it was her last chance that she had to kill the kids so that she could kill herself. She immediately took action when she heard the voice with no direction or details from this so-called voice and she killed the children. Once she killed the children, the voice stopped. When you consider this information in the course of the trial, ladies and gentlemen, I ask that you consider the source, the timing, the substance of her statements about this voice. You're also going to hear from, or you may hear from, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists who talk about what's called command hallucinations and voices that people hear before they do something. And when you hear that testimony, I ask that you keep in mind the details of what she's saying the voice told her and the details of when this [00:19:17] Speaker 1: voice spoke to her. So is this going to be her defense that, oh, I didn't do it because I wanted to, I did it because a voice told me to? That's a conviction and she's going away for life. I don't think they have the death penalty in Massachusetts. Do they? I don't think they do. Massachusetts is about as blue as they come. So as we already obviously know. Another important thing to remember throughout [00:19:39] Speaker 2: the course of this trial is that this is not a case about the Lindsay Clancy that sits before you today. this case is about the Lindsay Clancy on January 24th, 2023 at the time of the crimes. This was not a woman in the throes of psychosis on January 24th, 2023. This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal. [00:20:09] Speaker 1: And that is huge. That is very important because if her defense is going to be mental incompetence at the moment of the killing, which there are multiple different insanity defenses, like momentary insanity, a heat of passion, the McNaughton rule. You don't need to know all of this stuff for the purposes of this video. But if you are a lawyer, law student, judge, things like that, you know what I'm talking about. Or just, you know, a crime junkie that actually knows beyond, above and beyond what most people know when it comes to insanity defenses. This is going to be, it's starting to smell like, like a momentary insanity. Like she had a moment where she lost her mind. She lost her gourd. She wasn't thinking rationally. She wasn't acting rationally. She just was like, I need to take my children out. That's it. End of story. Goodbye. And that's okay. Let's see if it works. I don't think it will. You'll see in here [00:21:08] Speaker 2: evidence about all the things that she did that day, what she did in the days leading up to this incident, leading to the murders. You'll hear her spending time with her family and friends. You'll hear her appearing to be in good spirits and doing better for all intents and purposes. On that very day, you'll hear she interacted with people at the doctor's office. She came home and took care of the kids. She talked to people on the phone and via text message. The evidence will show you she was not psychotic that day. Throughout the evidence in this trial, you will learn about the defendant being the classic overachiever in school, in her personal life, in her nursing career. She was someone who liked to control every little detail of her life, of her family's life. In contrast, the pictures you'll see of the doting mother, the dedicated nurse. You'll also see a side of Lindsey Clancy that's different. Somebody extremely controlling, meticulous, and manipulative. The days were laid out with specificity. Strict schedules were expected to be maintained. Food was planned carefully. Sleep was scheduled to the minute. And at the time after Callan was born, her last baby, the family had to adjust. And by all sources that I expect you're going to hear at that trial, that summer was great. But after Patrick had finished his paternity leave and was back to work full time, when she no longer had a nanny to watch the baby do laundry, tidy up the house, follow her schedule, when she was responsible for it all, it was hard. It was hard for her to maintain that control. It was hard for her to bond with her kids. And in efforts to maintain control, she withheld information from her husband, from her doctors. She reported serious symptoms that were inconsistent with her daily activities, you'll hear. And ultimately, on January 24th, 2023, the defendant made a calculated decision. This was a woman who no longer liked the life she thought she wanted. It was getting harder and harder to control. And when she saw the opportunity to escape, she made the selfish choice to take it. [00:23:47] Speaker 1: That's huge. She made the selfish choice to take action. Kill the kids, do off with herself, and let the husband clean up the mess. She didn't expect that she would survive. And the fact that she, I mean, she planned it so poorly, the taking her own life portion. She just took a bunch of pills, and slit her wrists, and jumped out a second story window. Like, come on, lady. Like, pick one. And like the prosecutor said, even the slits on her wrists were superficial. They weren't really intending to have the desired effect. Interesting. [00:24:26] Speaker 2: Cora, Dawson, and Callan first, before attempting to take her own life. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a public debate about women's mental health and how the medical system treats women. This case is about this defendant, Lindsey Clancy. There is no dispute that she was dealing with mental health issues during this time period, prior to the murders. There'll be medical records, medical doctors, mental health professionals that will talk about treatment, prescriptions, hospital visits. All that's going to be before you. The evidence will show that this defendant had a means and access to mental health that most people don't. And she chose to deal with her mental health health issues in the worst way. She chose to manipulate her providers, seek out the quick and easy fix when she was feeling depressed and anxious. And when she didn't get what she expected, she chose an alternate route. She sought a different doctor. She changed medications after days. She disengaged from treatment when she didn't like the plan. After only four months in treatment, she made a choice, a deliberate and intentional decision that she did not want to try anymore. And because no one could take care of her her kids the way she wanted them to, she had to take them with her. Despite all the precision that she exhibited that day, you'll hear, the timing of it all, the swiftness of the killings, overcoming the interruption of Patrick's phone call, what she did not anticipate was that she would not be able to complete the act by killing herself. Ladies and gentlemen, people with mental illness commit crimes every day and are responsible for them. The fact that someone may suffer or have a mental illness, a mental disease or defect is not the end of the inquiry when it comes to guilt or innocence. It is whether a person can appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of the conduct and conform their conduct to the law. Do they know what they were doing? And can they control their actions? The evidence in this case will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant coldly and efficiently executed first Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callan. One by one, she strangled the life out of each one of them. She did so with no hesitation, with deliberate premeditation, and extreme atrocity and cruelty. She is criminally responsible for the murders because the evidence will prove to you that she knew exactly what she was doing. She drew her husband out of the house, their father, so that she had the opportunity and the time to carry out these murders. She maintained the ability to control her conduct, conform her conduct when she attempted to kill herself to escape the consequences. At the conclusion of this case, we're going to come back and we're going to ask that you return guilty of the murders of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy because the defendant committed those crimes. [00:28:01] Speaker 1: Wow. Now that was powerful. The defense is going to have a very, very difficult time with this opening. The jury, I think, is locked in. The story is simple. It's direct. The defenses are clear. The actions are unequivocal. What she has done and tried to do and failed after taking her children's lives is even further evidence of guilt. I mean, clearly she did not want to be in that chair. Now she is on trial to spend the rest of her life in prison, paralyzed from the waist down because of the fall. I mean, this woman did all of these things. It was clearly premeditated. It was clearly orchestrated, albeit poorly at the end, like I said. But I foreshadow a conviction in this woman's future. And this case is going to be going on for five or six weeks, I understand. So we are going to cover it parallel to the Karen Reed case. Courtney Clenney case, by the way, was supposed to start today, but they are in negotiations still. And the court date for that case was moved to October the 28th. But we still have a few other trials that we're going to be watching for. And yeah, I'm going to try and make videos on those as well. But later tonight, the defense is opening. And then tomorrow, the husband's testimony. So folks, I as always, I know this is a heavy one, but very interesting. That's why I wanted to cover it. So I hope you learned something as always. I hope you enjoyed it. And I will see you all. I love every single one of you. And I will see you all in the next video, right? Zinnia. Bye, everybody.