Jury Goes Inside the Clancy Home - Why the Defense Didn't Fight It (Lindsay Clancy Trial Day 4)

[00:00:00] Lawyer Lee: Today, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial left the courtroom. They drove past the CVS, past the 3B restaurant we've been hearing about, and then they walked through the home where Patrick and Lindsay Clancy lived with their three children. The jury saw the basement, the first floor, the second floor, the exact places the Commonwealth says Lindsay Clancy planned and carried out the killings of her three children. Hi, y'all. I'm Lawyer Lee. Thanks for watching. Tonight, we're going to talk about why a sight view that normally would be pretty controversial was not, and the defense supported it. We're going to look at why the blood evidence is still a full-on fight in this case, and we'll take a look at a new question that the defense is locking down about what Lindsay knew at the time she first claimed she heard voices that commanded her to do what she did. We're also going to talk about the hardest testimony yet in the trial, the doctors who tried to save little Callan and little Cora. Let's open the case file for day four of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Now, what happened today was a sight view. This is kind of like a jury field trip, but not at all like the happy field trips of your youth. This is not a trip to the zoo. Instead, the jury goes to see the scene of the crime. It's extremely important. I'll let the judge explain in his own [00:01:32] Speaker 2: words like he did to the jury. Here we go. The purpose of the view is to help you better understand the evidence that you've heard and will hear during the trial, and to help you appreciate the location, the surroundings, about these different areas. The observations that you make while on the view may be used by you and considered by you in your deliberations in reaching a verdict. So you can consider what you're about to see during the course of the view. The places that we're going to go to in this case, we're going to go, we're going to drive to the CVS that was described. We're not going to get out, but we're going to see where that is. Then we're going to drive by that restaurant, 3V I think it's called, in Plymouth. So we're going to drive there. Then we're going to go back to the home, which is at 4V. And you'll have an opportunity to go inside the house. You'll go in there with the court officers, the lawyers, myself. And because we've got a large jury here, what we're probably going to do is break it up into maybe three groups of six. So we'll take six and we'll all go down and look at different areas. The attorneys will point out certain things they may want you to take note of. But you can look at everything as far as just viewing. When you're in there, you're not to do any independent research and not to kind of open up drawers or open up doors or anything like that. After that, you're not to return to the scene. [00:02:55] Lawyer Lee: The judge told them that they would be allowed to look around the outside of the house because Lindsay, of course, was found outside the home, having jumped from the second floor. They were also allowed to go inside the house. The attendees were strictly limited. The judge did not allow media to go. Lindsay Clancy was allowed to go. The judge, the the 18 members of the jury, court staff, the defense and prosecution attorneys. And that was it. As we understand, though, from the defense attorney, Lindsay did not go to the home. Now they were allowed to look throughout the first floor, second floor and basement so they could get a full view of what the house looked like. The children were found in the basement. Under the judge's order, nobody could touch anything. They weren't allowed to paw through. The children were found in the basement. Under the judge's order, nobody could touch anything. They weren't allowed to paw through. They weren't allowed to paw through the possessions of the current homeowner. It's no longer owned by the Clancy's. This is normally fairly controversial to have a view. Generally speaking, you can just kind of group people into these categories. The judge doesn't really want this. Generally speaking, speaking, it's pretty inefficient. It's a lot of trouble. His staff is going to grumble because it's not like they're used to arranging for buses and things like that. So it's something they have to do that's different and hard. You have to corral the jury. You have to make sure nobody ends up seeing something they shouldn't see or talking to somebody they shouldn't talk to. It's just more difficult. So there have to be bailiffs or people who go with the jury and make sure that they aren't talking to each other and that they're safe and know where they're supposed to go. The homeowner here, and this was unusual, came in and actually opposed them going, you can't blame them for doing that because who would want your home associated with this? It's not good just in general for just vibes. But even more than that, it can't be good for resale. So I can see why they opposed it, but the judge said, no, it's too important. Prosecution really wants it. And in this case, and dividing into the third category. Well, first, let me talk about the prosecution. Why would the prosecution want this? Well, it's very emotional. The jury gets to feel it, gets to actually experience, okay, where were the children lying? Oh, right there. That's where Callen was. This is where Dawson was. And that creates an entirely an entirely different dimension to the way they understand the evidence. And that's generally good for the prosecution, but not great for the defense. In general, a defense attorney might ask the judge not to allow it to happen. But in this case, the defense had a good reason for wanting the jury to go to the house. And that is beating a prosecution argument in the opening statement. So initially, one of the One of the claims that the state had made is that Lindsey Clancy arranged for her husband to go out and run a couple of errands. She said, would you go to CVS to pick up something for Cora, their oldest daughter? Would you also go and pick up some dinner for us? I don't feel like cooking. And the prosecution hinted. And the prosecution hinted she did this because she wanted to get him out of the house. They hinted it more than once. Let's listen to some of those clips from opening statements. [00:06:18] Speaker 3: In the afternoon around 4pm, the defendant searched on her phone for Kids Miralax. 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 for the The restaurant had been a place that the family had eaten before, but wasn't their normal takeout spot. The defendant knows that Patrick has to stop at CVS, go to 3B. 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 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. [00:07:26] Lawyer Lee: You can see where the prosecution is going with this. They're suggesting Lindsay carefully picked a restaurant that was further away from the house and maybe one they would normally go to. And she looked up, how long is it going to take him to drive there? All because she had a plan. She wanted to do something and she needed him out of the house so he wouldn't stop her. So the defense has an argument they want to make against this. They want to say that she wasn't just trying to get Patrick out of the house. So here, let's take a look at what the jury would have seen in terms of the map. I just pulled up a Google map for you. This is the Google map that just shows you the route from the Clancy home to CVS. And it's just three minutes. The defense says three minutes is not exactly a really long distance to go. So the defense had a reason for wanting the jury to see that the two places were really close together. This wasn't an extensive errand. This wasn't an extensive errand she had sent her husband on. And then let's take a look at the second map, which will show us moving on from the Clancy home to CVS and then to the 3B restaurant. The total elapsed time is 15 minutes. So it would have been roughly 15 minutes of driving to get there and then a little bit less probably on the way home, depending on whether CVS is slightly out of the way, but roughly 15 minutes on the way back. So in half an hour, all the driving would be done. All he had to do was pick up something at CVS and pick up a pre-ordered meal at 3B. So the defense wanted the jury to see that it wasn't all that far. So I think that the reason that the jury view became important and everyone was willing to do it is that everyone had something to gain from it. Both the prosecution and the defense had some reason that they wanted the jury to see it. Now a second big point for today was more development of an argument between the two parties. The prosecution is suggesting that Lindsay Clancy faked a suicide attempt. Now the defense says she was in complete psychosis. She did not understand what she was doing. She was in mental distress. She tried to harm herself as well as them. And she was doing it all in response to this commanding voice that she heard. In opening statements, we saw the prosecution sort of go back and forth on whether they believed that Lindsay Clancy had made a serious attempt on herself. I pulled some of those clips so you can see for yourself. [00:10:19] Speaker 3: She locks the door, 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. [00:10:43] Lawyer Lee: Now, she specifically said it was in fact an attempt. But you're going to hear something a little bit different in this next clip, also from opening statement. [00:10:51] Speaker 3: Multiple traumas, including spinal injuries, as well as superficial injuries to both her wrists and her neck. She is paralyzed. [00:10:59] Lawyer Lee: So you heard her call them superficial injuries to her wrists and her neck. She also had a third statement. [00:11:07] Speaker 3: 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. [00:11:25] Lawyer Lee: So it seems to come back around to the prosecution suggesting, no, this really was an attempt. But although it wasn't completely clear in opening statement exactly what it was that the prosecution was arguing. Since then, the prosecution has spent significant time asking the EMTs, asking the police officers to confirm that the wounds to Lindsay Clancy's neck and wrists were superficial. The state is suggesting this just was not a real attempt. Here's an example of something that they asked one of the witnesses. [00:12:01] Speaker 3: Sir, when you were at the hospital with Lindsay Clancy, with the defendant, were the medical staff in the emergency department actively treating the wounds to her neck and her wrists? No, they were not. [00:12:12] Lawyer Lee: They didn't even have to treat them. That's how minor they were. In other words, these were not serious injuries. But in opening statements, the defense said, this is no fake suicide. And it showed a picture of Lindsay Clancy when she was brought to the hospital. Now, today, both sides put in numerous pictures of Lindsay from the hospital. They both put in close-ups of the cuts. Both sides did it and they had very different interpretations. They would put in slightly different pictures or they would even put in the same one. But the defense saw these as serious of prosecution as superficial, just entirely different. This blood battle, blood feud between the two sides has gone on throughout the trial so far. With the prosecution suggesting it really was a minor deal and the defense suggesting, no, this was very serious. Here's the defense. [00:13:04] Speaker 4: The bottom line is that you do agree that there was certainly blood on the interior and exterior clothing that she was wearing, right? That's correct. It also agrees, sir, that there was blood in the area from the outside of the backyard directly underneath the window. Is that correct? Do you agree with that if you remember looking at it? That is correct. The ground, the snow, and the leaves that were underneath. Of course, there were a lot of people walking around, but you could see the blood. Correct. That was directly underneath the window, right? The back window. You noticed blood was on the window sill itself on the second floor, one hand, one mark on that window ledge. Yes. You also noted blood that at some point had gone on to the two shingles that were in the area underneath that ledge, underneath that window, right? Correct. [00:13:57] Lawyer Lee: So what the defense is trying to say is there was a good deal of blood. This was a serious attempt. This wasn't just something that was surface level and you could tell that from the scene. The defense also pointed out that Lindsay, in fact, almost died that night. [00:14:16] Speaker 4: And then while you were there in the early morning, I was about 2:24 or something like that. There was, as you said to the jury, a code, right? Yes. And again, that kind of amped up the bedlam at that point, didn't it? Yes, sir. There were people running from all over and you could hear on the microphone code blue with the room being identified, right? Yes. And that meant that she was dead or dying, right? Yes. [00:14:44] Lawyer Lee: A third point the two sides have battled over so far is the prosecution suggesting that Lindsay Clancy made up the whole postpartum psychosis thing. She did it after the fact and she did it in order to avoid what would be coming the consequences she would bear for doing such a horrible act of killing her children. The defense is trying to prove that not only did Lindsay Clancy not make it up, it would have been impossible because when she woke up, when she was first conscious again in the hospital, because she was unconscious for a period of time, she immediately told people in the hospital that she had had this commanding voice. The defense is trying to prove that at the time Lindsay first told people about this commanding voice she was hearing, she had not spoken to anyone who could have given her any information about it. She just was communicating what had truly happened to hospital staff. What the defense wants to prove is what you hear from the opening statement. [00:15:52] Speaker 4: I saw Lindsay, as soon as she came out of her home, she is a woman that works with the religious services in that hospital. And the first thing that Lindsay wanted to know is where's my family. And then she told her about what happened and told her about the command voices. [00:16:14] Lawyer Lee: And so they're asking the police officers about whether or not they guarded her hospital room and whether or not they kept people from going in and talking to Lindsay. [00:16:26] Speaker 4: Now, at some point, police were detailed, if you know, to sit outside the room to guard the door, is that correct? Yes. And what were you guarding against? Objection. [00:16:38] Speaker ?: No, overall. [00:16:39] Speaker 4: Anybody coming to visit. Right. Because nobody was allowed to visit, right? Correct. [00:16:46] Lawyer Lee: So the defense is saying this is all entirely real. This was something spontaneously said by Lindsay when no one had had a chance to talk to her or to tell her anything other than what she said was simply the truth. The fourth and really most heartbreaking part of the day was that we heard from two doctors who had tried to revive Cora and Callan. Cora five, Callan eight months. Lindsay became completely hysterical during part of this testimony. And I'll just give you a short clip from one. It's a lot to take. You're about to hear from the ER physician who worked on Callan and he's just going to describe medically what they tried to do to help this eight month old. [00:17:36] Speaker 5: At the time his heart had stopped and CPR was ongoing and he was not breathing. He was receiving breaths by a back valve mass ventilation. [00:17:45] Speaker 6: And what did you do in terms of treating Callan? [00:17:49] Speaker 5: So as soon as he came in basically we put in a breathing tube and we were able to get an IV established. The first thing that we do is give a dose of epinephrine. And in this case you can look directly at the heart with an ultrasound and his heart started beating after we were able to give that dose. At that point we continued compressions, continue giving him breaths through the breathing tube. And Plymouth Hospital does not have pediatrics or the ability to care for that level of pediatric patients. So we're on the phone with Boston Children's Hospital making preparations basically to get him to do more definitive care. [00:18:27] Speaker 6: And about how long into your care of Callan did he regain a heartbeat? [00:18:33] Speaker 5: Probably from the time that he got to the ER maybe like 10 minutes or so I'm guessing. [00:18:39] Speaker 6: At any point in time did he regain the ability to breathe on his own while he was in your care? [00:18:44] Speaker 5: No. [00:18:45] Speaker 6: Did you do any examination or testing to determine Callan's brain function? [00:18:49] Speaker 5: So at no point did he exhibit any brain function. At no time during his care did he have any brain function that was evident on my exam. [00:18:58] Speaker 6: And at some point in time was it decided to transfer his care to Boston Children's Hospital? [00:19:03] Speaker 5: Yes, we were in contact with him basically immediately and then he was flown by helicopter to Boston Children's Hospital. And they the whole time the ICU doctors were on the phone reviewing the case and making recommendations. [00:19:14] Speaker 6: And at any point in time to your knowledge from the time he entered the emergency department at Beth Israel Deaconess Plymouth until he arrived at Boston Children's Hospital was he able to breathe on his own? [00:19:25] Speaker 5: No. [00:19:30] Lawyer Lee: That is a huge reminder to us of what this case is really about. I also want to remind us of what this case is about legally. This is our chart about what the jury will ultimately have to decide because Lindsay Clancy says she done this but she was not criminally responsible. And what that means under the Massachusetts statutes is that she lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. And her argument is she was in such mental distress that she could not do those things. She could not appreciate that she was doing something wrong. She couldn't do something different if she wanted to because of this commanding voice and her inability to do something different. So let me put it to you. We will listen to all the evidence. But what are you thinking about the case so far? Let me know that in the comments. And please hit the like button. It really helps the channel. And subscribe. We'd love to have you back for more.