About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of LINDSAY CLANCY FULL CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Defense Claims Psychosis, State Argues Planning — AB1G from DRM News and 2 more, published October 30, 2026. The transcript contains 16,090 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"It was about five weeks ago that we met like this and I indicated to you that, thank you for incredible service, all of us mean that sincerely, you took literally more than a month out of your lives and sat here tentatively, incredible, through some of the toughest, most gut-wrenching things that..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: It was about five weeks ago that we met like this and I indicated to you that, thank you for incredible service, all of us mean that sincerely, you took literally more than a month out of your lives and sat here tentatively, incredible, through some of the toughest, most gut-wrenching things that any person can be subjected to and I indicated that sadly jurors carry this trauma with them for years and the service that you have performed I have never seen before. You have listened to evidence, you have been fair, you have been objective, you've listened to the judges instructions and you've carried them into your heart consistent with your oath, which is a very, very solemn oath. Pass between Beverly and Lindsey, who has placed herself on her country, which country you are, as a jury of your peers. When you consider what's at stake here, in the sense of what we've been dealing with, Laura Dawson Kellner. She knows loss. And that's why we thank Corman, Dyson, Kelly for a minute. They are the victims of this case. They are the victims of the horrible, horrific act that has been laid at your feet as jurors to decide whether or not Lindsey is guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt, as his honor instructed you and will instruct you, what that means, that standard of proof that we as citizens in this country are so blessed to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before the government charges any citizen with a crime. I don't care how many cops you have in here, how many VAs are sitting here, how many people are sitting in the front row, and they're all going to sit there and be proud of this prosecution. I told you in the opening statement that this is a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl. This is what they had. This is their family. How does this turn into this? How? Because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got. You can troop as many paid experts as you want to come in here and tell the jury, "Oh, well, she didn't say that she heard voices inside her head. She said she heard voices from outside her head. She said she was making chicken McNuggets. There was a bowl in the sofa. She wasn't making chicken McNuggets. She said something as I think and I muse and I try real hard to tell you what my opinion is that this woman was acting in her right mind when these children were killed." So, when you consider the evidence in this case, you consider the person who is in front of you, who is the defendant, as the government refers to her. And as Ernest Arnold wouldn't like to tell you, even though a person is a defendant in that system of justice, you don't have to defend against anything. The government has the burden of proof. When the DA decides to charge someone with a crime, he has the burden of proof. His assistants have the burden of proof to prove, number one, that Lindsay is guilty of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. And then prove, number two, that Lindsay, at the time, killed her children, was not suffering from a mental disease or defect that caused her to have a lack of substantial capacity to appreciate, to know, to realize. To realize that what was being done while she was in a psychosis. But we'll laugh about that. It's just, just another woman. I guess it's just going to make an excuse. She's depressed. GAD. General anxiety. Give her a couple of pills. She'll be alright. You know from looking at the objective evidence in this case, this young lady, believe me, I don't have many clients like that. This young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was a nurse, a daughter, a wife, and a darn good mother. You can see from the objective evidence, you can see, and you'll have all the exhibits for you to look at, and you can see by looking at these photographs, which you will have in the jury room. You can see the Facebook postings. You can see what she indicates about, for example, I just randomly grabbed this one. A son, my prince, that they would have you think she killed him first cruelly because she didn't like him. That is repulsive. So she's living real life with Pat, her kids, having a great time that summer. Life is good. She had to go back to work. And in the opening statement, I told you, I said, "Watch the evidence. Watch the manipulation." Because that's what this case was built upon originally, and how it developed as the case progressed until it's in front of you. And how does that happen? Well, from the very beginning, going all the way back to when the first 911 call that you had to suffer through was made. You could hear in the voice, Pat Clancy, the horror of what he had obviously experienced. You can see from the evidence that's before you, the injuries that she suffered. You will have in the jury room, the exhibits that indicated the extent of the injuries from, I don't have to go through all of them, the extent of the injuries to slitting her throat, to slashing her wrists, throwing herself out a window, blood all over the bedroom floor, window open, screen slashed. Oh no, the screen wasn't slashed. My bad. That's what she thought. It's called a delusion. She was in a psychosis when she thought that. Probably right here, sitting here, believes that she slashed the screen. She didn't. Subjective evidence. And why did we spend almost a week showing you the extent and the severity of that suicide attempt? The reason that we had to do that is because they were arguing that it was a fake suicide. Dinky little cuts. No bleeding. She didn't mean to kill herself. She was just going to throw herself out the window, I guess, and slide down the house. Remember that one? Hanging off of the window. Sliding down the house. And Lindsay screwed up. And she hurt herself bad. You know that's not what happened. You know that she made the testimony of Dr. Velkovich. That she made a very, very significant suicide effort. Slashing her wrists, slitting her throat. And isn't it interesting when you consider objective evidence. Googling. Slitting her throat. Googling. Suicide. Googling. Drugs. Googling. Side effects. Googling. Ketamine treatments. Googling. All of these drugs. Googling. Googling. The effects. Of. Tufts. Medications. Lorazepam. Sertraline. Hydroxazine. Lorazepam. Buspirone. Lorazepam. Buspirone. Trazodone. Flaxapine. Zoltadine. Myrdazine. Clonazazepam. Quedapine. Diazepam. Diazepam. Quedapine. It goes on and on and on and on and on and on. We have the chat and have the descriptions to see. And obviously she wasn't consuming all of these at the same time. Because one thing this kid did was try to do what she was supposed to do. She took the drugs as she was told to take them. She was religious in her obligations to take care of her health. She went to Dr. Tufts. When she was a young lady. Living in her house. With her husband. And her babies. Respected nurse. Wife. Friend. Mother. Should have kept drinking, huh? That was a big deal, wasn't it? Remember that? We're just going to assassinate this young lady in every which way we can. Remember that evidence? I was concerned. She was drinking. Five drinks a day. She was worried about it. You heard the evidence. The evidence? Up to 2019. What are they talking about? She wasn't drinking while she had her kids. She wasn't drinking while she was breastfeeding. And she would have a couple of beers with her friends. That's bad. Put that over in the bad pile. Right here. We spent all that time showing through Dr. Lapisada's testimony. That this was a legitimate, dreadful, horrific suicide attempt. You think about this beautiful young girl throwing herself out a window. That's a corner. I don't know if you have to play pool.
[00:13:01] Speaker 2: I challenge you to tell this jury why we spent a week showing that she committed, as your witnesses. Counsel, address the jury, please.
[00:13:11] Speaker 1: Said their witnesses. Serious suicide attempt. Remember that? She tried to kill herself. So now they'll back off on that. And they'll agree. Serious suicide attempt. That's why I say, watch the evidence. Watch the manipulation. Remember the argument with the bands. She took the bands out of the bag. Put the gloves on. Talks to Dr. Lapisada on the Zoom. Slams the bands down. Out of the paper bag. Does the movement of the bands. And yells at Lapisada. And says, wrapped. They were just wrapped. They weren't knotted. They weren't knotted. Because you've got to get Lindsay tightening the band, right? You've got to hold it. You've got to hold it for a minute. You've got to hold it for two minutes. Three minutes. Four minutes. That's why she needed the bands. Not knotted. And then she said, it's like this. And they sprang open. Remember that? Dr. Lapisada said, yeah, I saw what you did. And she walked away like if the glove won't fit moment. Quarter number two. What did Patrick Clancy testify to? You heard his testimony. He indicated clearly, unequivocally, they were knotted around the necks of those children. To the point where he had to struggle. And it's your memory, not mine. If I say something you don't recall, forget it. It's what you remember the evidence to be. But, clearly, I would suggest, he struggled to get it off of Dawson's, over his head. And a police officer saw through the window. This is horrific stuff. But it's objective. And it shows the manipulation. This government, this prosecution is a mess. They would take their evidence and argue to you that she did not tie a knot and walk away. Because, as Dr. Lapisada said, you're talking about four, five seconds, so somebody passes out. No, they got to have the four minutes. And that's not what the evidence shows, is it? So, as we move on, Lindsay's in the hospital. And this whole thing about conversations, and she's talking to people, and the kids are in the basement. Her throat was crushed. You heard the 911 tape. You draw the inference whether or not there's a conversation about where the children are. I tried to kill myself, the kids are in the basement. All that, you determine whether or not that was something that could be discerned. And the police investigation, because as his honor indicates, there are two things here. Number one, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she's guilty. And number two, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not suffering from a disease or defect, as his honor instructed you at the time of these killings. Those are the two things they have to prove. And when the police charge somebody with a criminal offense, they have an obligation to investigate. At the end of the day, when you're talking about, well, we've got charges before the court. You can sit there in the court. You can feel proud of yourself. Did you do a good investigation? You even know with this, you'll see the photograph of the cup and the powder. What is it? What is it? They don't even analyze. Did they take pictures? Did they analyze? Did they test the blood? Did they? Lousy investigation. Well, that's okay because she was guilty. And they put her in the hospital. And she's the evil woman that killed the three innocent kids. And they're going to stand there while she's chained to the bed, paralyzed. You heard testimony from Dr. Zeisel. They weren't little fluffy cuffs that were securing her to the bed. They were handcuffs. Not the medical treatment. Medical treatment would be, you know, restraints. So you don't do whatever. Pull lines out and things. We're talking about when the big men were in there with their guns and their badges and their sitting outside the door. And they're going to make sure that Lindsay Clancy, paralyzed, chained to the bed, doesn't get up and run away from the hospital, I guess. And they just have to suffer their way through. I guess I worked. I don't know. I worked eight hours. I had another shift.
[00:18:26] Speaker ?: I had to work that night.
[00:18:27] Speaker 1: This is the treatment. And what's important about that is what kind of treatment did this young lady get on the health care providers? Remember Meg Collins? She came in this court. Meg, you might remember. Tall woman. Short blonde hair. Squared away. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
[00:18:55] Speaker ?: Unbelievable.
[00:18:56] Speaker 1: She was not only a nurse taking care of her in the hospital. She advocated for her. She stood up for her patient. She protected her. During the pandemic, you know that Meg Collins was in that emergency room when half of us were hiding at home behind our computers, hoping that we're not going to die in a week, drinking that Chardonnay at 11 o'clock in the morning. Meg Collins was in a hospital treating people and advocating for them. That's an example of what nursing is all about. Not having attitude. Not treating somebody like they're to be disdained. And what's even worse? She comes out of a coma. She is intubated. She has had major, major surgery of her broken, crushed spine, vertebrae, rib, thyroid. Massive. Massive. Not my words. Medical records. Massive testimony. Blood transfusion for the blood loss. And when someone, you've heard evidence, comes out of surgery, they are delusional. You've had anesthesia. You've had a, think about having a tooth pulled. Think about the trauma that somebody has when they're in a hospital bed laying there paralyzed, unable to feel the lower half of their body, but able to feel, with the meds and the pain medication and everything else, the damage to the spine, and then the hospital has a meeting. Remember the other doctor, I think it was Dr. Shah, an Indian woman? Wicked. Impressive. She was amazing. She was amazing. She had the facts. She was able to tell you exactly what she observed. She was able to tell you what they were doing to treat Lindsay. She treated her like a human being. She was a damn good doctor. Came in here and told you all of her observations about her and told you one of the things that ultimately that they were concerned about is they had to have this big confabulation about we're going to take her off the, what is it, the health care process. They had to have lawyers. They had to have people there. They had to have her signing documents. They had to determine whether or not she was going to be signing something to have her parents take over because Pat was not going to be responsible for her care. Lawyers. Cops. Handcuffs. Do I need a lawyer? Write that down. Where are you? You're out there somewhere. Write that down. Boy, she wanted a lawyer. That's a bad thing. Must be guilty. Let's put that in the guilty pile. That's why she said that in a delirious state. Dealing with all of these people about that issue. But what's even more nefarious is you think about it, as I said. Your eye on the ball because of the manipulation. Paul Zeisel. Big deal. I'm friends with the guy. You heard evidence that I called him. I was with Pat a night or two after this incident in the bedroom with all the blood. I was with Pat taking evidence that the police didn't even see in their thorough investigation. And I was able, as you know now, certainly, to grab this. Why wouldn't the police have grab this? They're all empty. You can see when they were prescribed. You can see what they are. You can see what she took. Read the testimony. It's tough to take a handful of pills. Remember the guy saying that yesterday? Tough to take a handful of pills. Well, no. They were crushed. Oh! They were crushed. Okay. Where's the residue? Where's the crusher? Where's anything? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Great investigation, guys. So you have a situation where they leave this behind. They don't even look at it. One of them, and again, your memory, don't worry. One of them testifies, well, they might have looked at it and saw it and just didn't seize it. Seriously? They got out of the kitchen. They seized every pill bottle that was in the cabinet along with the books. And speaking of books, one of the things that they found smoking gun. Good moms have scary thoughts. Hallelujah. Put that in the guilty pile. We're going to put this in a plastic bag. We're going to show it to a jury so they know that this young lady had scary thoughts. It turns out that Gelata gave it to her. So you have this evidence. You have evidence of sleep aids. You have evidence in the bag. Because obviously this stuff was just thrown in there. It wasn't in a bag when I saw it inside this thing here and we seized it. And we held it for three and a half years. Anybody care about it? No. You heard evidence that police knew that they had it. They could have it. They could look at it. They could do whatever they wanted. They didn't have to. This here. You've heard evidence. This is a little wish jar that they bought on their honeymoon in Hawaii many years prior to even having kids. And when you look inside it, you see that there's all sorts of little folded up pieces of paper. Some of them are dated. Some of them aren't. They go all the way back to 2017, 2018, '20. And they reference her wishes to have healthy kids. Her wishes for her kids to be successful. Her wishes to have a good birth. Second time around, hoping for a good birth. Worrying about the child with the, about the, I forget where they rubbed the thing like. This woman lived for her kids until she had the pleasure running into Dr. Tufts of her two months experience. And after she ran into Dr. Tufts, it was not a wonderful life anymore. And what did Dr. Tufts do? And everybody laughs at me. I said the television. Okay, I know it's a tele, telemedical thing on the, on your telephone or on the Zoom. Take more pills. You have the medical records. You heard the testimony. You know her concerns. You know her fears. Does this seem like a young lady that didn't care and wanted to score more drugs off somebody? That's another repulsive allegation. I think the evidence is pretty clear. There's no basis for that at all. She was scared. September into October of '22. Young, vibrant, hardworking. You've heard all this. Not my words. Witnesses' words. Holding goals for herself. Hardworking. Hardworking. Nurse. Hardworking. Mother. Would take the kids to the Kings, Kingsbury Club. That's another thing. Sounds pretty snooty, doesn't it? Oh, they're at the Kingsbury Club. It's a swimming pool. And a place where you can exercise. Watch the manipulation. Because now you've got a situation where you've got manipulation with the Kingsbury Club. You've got manipulation with these other items here. And you've also got manipulation of. Balls eyes up. Told Lindsay what to say. Say that you're hearing voices. Think about how ugly that is. Because you know beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though we don't have any proof. We have no burden. You heard from Sheila. Remember Sheila? The woman that's the, you know, the Reverend or whatever. She's the chaplain at the Brigham and Women's Hospital. She didn't know Lindsay from anybody. That night when she came in all broken up. And she told you. And she continued. She was there when Lindsay came out of, was extubated. She was there when Lindsay was going through her treatments. She was there for eight days before Paul Ziesel even knew Lindsay existed. But they would be in here telling you that Lindsay saw the psychologist. Because the lawyer went and got the psychologist to go and speak to her. And then you have these guys here. The cops. They're having meetings. Talking about it. They're talking about it. Must have been the shrink. Must have been the psychologist. Must have been Ziesel. He's the guy that told her what to say. And he did not. How can you ruin a man's reputation. With the career that he has had and still has thankfully. To put him in a position. Where he tells a broken young woman. Who is vilified by a society for killing her three children. That he goes in the hospital and tells her to say. She heard voices. Disgusting. So now you know. That she told Sheila. First. That she heard voices. Command hallucinations. She didn't say command hallucinations. I heard voices. It was a male voice. Told me. You had these other guys that came in. The government's rebuttal witnesses. Very, very impressive. Very, very impressive. The first two. Mac. Put him aside. You've got the other doctor as well. So Mac is. Why he was freaked out when I asked him where he stayed. The other guy looked at me like his eyes were bugging. Why did I ask where he stayed. Whatever. Point is. They don't see her. For years. Years. And why.
[00:30:14] Speaker ?: The other guy.
[00:30:15] Speaker 1: Halbrin.
[00:30:16] Speaker ?: I think it was Halbrin.
[00:30:17] Speaker 1: He had to wait until they pro. Maybe it was the last man. I forget. They had to process his payment from the DA's office through the school. Who cares. If you have an obligation. To try. And be objective. To try. And even look as though you're competent and objective. Why would you wait. For so long. Why would you go with another guy. Why would you take this young lady. And have her. In a room. And question her. One right after the other. Wouldn't you like to sit there. And be questioned by Dr. Mac. Boy that would be an experience. For three hours. Four hours. And the other guy is going to pepper his question. To try. To try. To try. To try. And be objective. To try. And even look as though you're competent. And objective. Why would you wait. For so long. Why would you go with another guy. Why would you take this young lady. And have her. In a room. And question her. One right after the other. Wouldn't you like to sit there. And be questioned by Dr. Mac. Is going to pepper his questions at her as well. Between that period. And the next day. She can take tests. And then go back at it again. With Mac. And with Heilbrun. And she was cooperative. She was pleasant. She was friendly. She answered the questions. And she owned. What she did. She never ran from anything. She's gone through. Valuation. After evaluation. After evaluation. After evaluation. Recorded. You'll have the video. To look at. As they're questioning her. As she's sitting there. In her wheelchair. Hour. After hour. After hour. Three years. After this incident. But that's okay. They're busy. Paul Zeisel. Paul Zeisel. Was there.
[00:31:53] Speaker ?: Literally.
[00:31:54] Speaker 1: In Brigham and Woman's. Because I called him. Because I. Was asked. To represent. This young lady. You've heard evidence. I saw her in the hospital. I saw her laying in the bed broken. I saw her laying in the bed. Practically dead. I reached out to Dr. Zeisel. And I asked him. Please. Can you talk to this woman. Concerned. As he testified. For her mental well-being. What kind of demons. What kind of horror. Was in her mind. As she lay there paralyzed. And hurting. And medicated. Swollen. Tools. Pops. Chains. He went and talked to her. Big deal. I asked him to go. You judge the credibility. Of a person. Did Paul Zeisel. Have the ring of truth. When he told you. That he's there. A humane. Feeling. To try. To help. This. Young. Lady. And he's been. By. Her side. For three. And a half. Years. Same thing. And Sheila. Why would Sheila. For. All. This time. Visit. With Lindsay. As she testified. At the. Tewksbury hospital. She's not getting paid. She's not a hired gun. She's not somebody. That's coming in. To say something. At my request. She loves. She loves Lindsay. He's a good kid. He's a beautiful soul. So you have Zeisel. That has been with her. All that time. You've got Sheila. Who's been with her. All that time. You get evidence. That her mom and dad. Who lived in Connecticut. Come up. And they stay. And they visit with her. And God forbid. They actually. Sometimes had dinner. Remember that. They get the Tewksbury records. Boy. There's a good score. Let's go through the Tewksbury records. And see what she's doing. On the anniversary of the deaths. How about. On their birthdays. Can you see them sitting there. Going through the medical records. Okay. Doctor. What did she do then. She propelled herself down the hallway. Met with her parents. Laughed. Had dinner. Watched TV. Talked on the telephone. God forbid. She's not curled up in the fetal position. Wailing. Self-flagellating. Constantly. For three and a half years. She's acting like a human being. Trying to exist. But they go through the records. And they want to get those dates. And use them against her. Manipulation. And then you consider. We're three weeks away from a trial. The guy yesterday. That's looking up. To the heavens. While he's testifying. Caesar. Tells you. That he wanted to establish. A rapport. Can you imagine. You know. That you're three weeks. Away. From your murder trial. And you know. That this is. Doctor number three. Who's been hired by the government. To come in. And evaluate you. And testify against you. And he's going to. He's going to establish a rapport. There is no rapport. But yet. He was cooperative. She was friendly. Interestingly enough. Just like. The treating doctors. Don't talk to each other. They don't communicate with each other. They don't have access to medical records. She signs the HIPAA forms. They don't know. What her records are. But they know for sure. What Dr. Resnick. Had in his report. They know for sure. What Dr. Zeisel. Had in his report. They know for sure. What Meg Spinelli. Had in her report. And they incorporate that into their report. But then. You have the MMPI. And the other psychological tests. That were administered to her. On the second day. Of the Mac. Pilbrin team. Interviewing. Interrogating. Questioning her. She passes. The MMPI. Testimony is presented. She answered the MMPI honestly. And they're pertaining to. State of mind. They're pertaining to questions about. What occurred. They're questioning. This young lady. As to what. Her state of mind was. Then. In the middle. And now. And she didn't. Wow. She didn't. Malinga. She didn't exaggerate. And more importantly. If anything. She minimizes. But she certainly. Was off to chat. On the suicide scale. And then you have. Testimony from Dr. Resnick. Dr. Zeisel. Dr. Carney. And they were paid. For their testimony. They're all paid. Like I said. Not the jury so much. But the judge. And itself. Chrissy. Everybody gets paid.
[00:37:04] Speaker ?: These.
[00:37:06] Speaker 1: Doctors. Came in and testified. Phil Resnick. Phil Resnick. The man is something out of a scary movie. He has. The world record. Of. Investigating. Examining. And treating. People in psychosis. That kill their children. Phyllis said. He has. A world renowned record. For checking. Fakers. To see. If. A person. Is malingering. Their doctor. Agreed. That his. Article.
[00:37:41] Speaker ?: On voices.
[00:37:42] Speaker 1: Is. A leading. Article. With research. In the world. Their doctor. Agreed. That he. Phil Resnick. Is an expert. On malingering. You heard him. Testify. By zoom. Because he had surgery.
[00:37:57] Speaker ?: But he showed up.
[00:37:58] Speaker 1: By zoom. And testified. That again. Four months. After this. Incident. He met with Lindsay. Evaluated Lindsay. Compared. Looked at all the records. Just like all the rest of them. Everyone says. Look at all the records. The police reports. Grandjury minutes. Everything else. He indicates clearly. In his opinion. That she was. In a state of psychosis. At the time. Of this. Death. Times three. Has. In a state of psychosis. At the time. Of this. Death. Times three. Has. In a state of psychosis. At the time. Of this. Death.
[00:38:34] Speaker ?: Has.
[00:38:35] Speaker 1: Any. Of.
[00:38:37] Speaker ?: The.
[00:38:37] Speaker 1: Government. Doctors. Rebutted. That. One of them. Halbrun. Said. It's possible. Either way.
[00:38:46] Speaker ?: That's not proof.
[00:38:47] Speaker 1: Beyond a reasonable doubt. The other one. Mac. You can. Accept his. Testimony. If you wish. But. I suggest that. You probably won't. And then you left. With the doctor. Yesterday. Who didn't even know. Didn't even know. What killing.
[00:39:03] Speaker ?: During the course.
[00:39:03] Speaker 1: And when I was questioning. About it. He agreed. And I said. Don't just agree with me. Just agreeing with me. Because I said that. And he basically said. Yeah. What kind of expert testimony. Is this. It's a. Mess. But the government. Uses them. To try to rebut. A man like Phil Resnick. Who tells you. That she was suffering. From a. Horrific. Mental disease. And defect. And defect. At the time. The killing. Of her beautiful children. Why. The how. And the fact. That under the law. As his honor. Has given you. She's not. Criminally. Responsible. And the burden. Is on them. Right here. Prove to you. That at the time. Of the killing. As Dr. Resnick. Says. That she was suffering. From a disease. A defect. As Dr. Zayzel. Said. She was suffering. From a disease. A defect. A defect. And candy. Took you down. The road. Of all of these medications. As a psychopharmacologist. As a psycho. A doctor. That specializes. In.
[00:40:09] Speaker ?: Prescription medications.
[00:40:10] Speaker 1: And you got the evidence. So you're able to. To look at that. And determine. See what the side effects are. What she was complaining of. And look at her records. I mean. They have really. Turned. Turned her inside out. I mean. They've got every single text. Every single email. Every single picture. Everything that she did. In college. Oh. That's another thing. She lied. According to the guy yesterday. She lied. To her. To Pat. About being on Prozac. They were dating for three months. She's living in Boston. She meets this kid. She thinks that she. She might like them. And they're dating. Oh. Excuse me. Before you go out with me. Let me tell you that. About a year ago. When I was. Studying for my exams. Because I'm nervous about. Talking in public.
[00:40:56] Speaker ?: I got on Prozac.
[00:40:57] Speaker 1: Seriously. That's what the government. Is acting in this case. You're going to have this journal. Which talks about. Her being. This is how controlling she is. Manipulation. In the opening statement. You may recall. That the district attorney said. That she. Was a hard. Charging. Manipulating. Woman. That was controlling. And everything in their life. Was controlled. And she ran it. To the water. To the carrots. To the beets. You look in this book.
[00:41:33] Speaker ?: And as you might recall.
[00:41:34] Speaker 1: Miss Rossi.
[00:41:35] Speaker ?: Testified.
[00:41:35] Speaker 1: When asked. Did you feel. That she was being. Controlling of you. Because she says. For example.
[00:41:41] Speaker ?: Monday.
[00:41:41] Speaker 1: 10:24. Tell him. Put down for a nap. Hopefully will nap for two hours. If he wakes. Shortly. Let him resettle himself. Bottle when he wakes up. Then it goes on and on. Make salad. Romaine lettuce. He likes peppers. Broccoli. Cut the sweet potatoes. In chunks. Thank you. With the heart. Another good score. You look at her. Journals. That she took. You'll see.
[00:42:04] Speaker ?: As you go along.
[00:42:06] Speaker 1: In the dates. That she's reading. That she's reading. You'll see.
[00:42:11] Speaker ?: As you go along.
[00:42:12] Speaker 1: In the dates.
[00:42:13] Speaker ?: That she's reading.
[00:42:14] Speaker 1: You'll see. You'll see. As you go along. In the dates. That she's reading. In the dates. That she's recording. In these journals. She's talking about. The drugs. That she was prescribed. And look at the first page. Look at how detailed. Dates. How she felt. 10 milligrams. Prozac. And it goes on like that. Goes on through. November into December. December. December. December 9th. 10th. 11th. Horrible. Intrusive. Thoughts. Horrible. Thoughts. In the AM. Horrible. Thoughts. Horrible. Thoughts. No. Motivation. And then. Finally. Horrible. Thoughts.
[00:43:01] Speaker ?: No.
[00:43:02] Speaker 1: Motivation. Deeply. Depressed. Women in infant's hospital. Right. Looking for help. Look at this. As she runs into January. There's nothing.
[00:43:13] Speaker ?: Other than. Little.
[00:43:15] Speaker 1: Chicken scratches. Because her mind. Was gone. In January. As she's on these drugs. And she's suffering. From what you've heard.
[00:43:22] Speaker ?: Is postpartum.
[00:43:23] Speaker 1: Depression. That can lead to postpartum. Psychosis. And you have these men. Coming in here. That don't even know. Psychosis. From schizophrenia. As experts. Telling you. That if a woman. Doesn't have these symptoms. Like it's a disease. Of symptoms. Of postpartum. Depression. Within four weeks. That's it. Lights out. You're not. A person. That can be considered. You're not a real person. For purposes of. Postpartum. Depression. Within four weeks. That's it. Lights out. You're not. A person. That can be considered. You're not a real person. For purposes of. Postpartum. Depression. And or. Postpartum. Psychosis. Well. I suggest. That he's wrong. I suggest. The second guy's wrong. And the third guy.
[00:44:08] Speaker ?: Well.
[00:44:08] Speaker 1: Actually. I didn't even know. It's your memory. If the gentleman. Mack. Even knew. I think he said.
[00:44:15] Speaker ?: Four weeks.
[00:44:16] Speaker 1: It can go up to a year. Or longer. But we don't really know. Because. You heard the evidence. There's no evidence. There's nothing in the DSM. But that's the Bible. God forbid. You should go to Europe. You should look at the World Health Organization records. You should look at the way they treat pregnant women. That have problems with their children. No. We're the most advanced country in the world. But we still have doctors that come into court on a murder trial. And talk about a four week cut off. On something that they don't even know exists. They've never treated it. They've never written about it. You have terrorism experts. You have an expert that comes in. And talks about his focus. And his interests. And it's about juveniles. And drugs. And like I said. Kids that like to drink and smoke weed. Those are the experts. Quote, unquote. to support their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay was not suffering from a disease or defect at the time that she killed her children. You all remember this. October. This is not in evidence. It's micro-identifications. Too big. So. But basically it shows clearly and unequivocally the depths of despair that this young kid was in. Trying to raise three kids. Trying to be a wife. Ready to go back to work. Did anyone say that she was just lazy or just didn't want to go back to work? Manipulation.
[00:45:45] Speaker ?: They're arguing.
[00:45:46] Speaker 1: She didn't want to go back to work. She didn't want to go back to work because she didn't want to leave her kids. Especially Callen. Because she loved her children. They were her life. Manipulation. And when you consider the journals. I don't know. You gotta watch the movie there The Shining with Jack Nicholson. Remember the scene when he's sitting there in a state of complete psychosis. And he's writing a book and he's typing. And the wife finds the book and opens it up and looks at it and says, "All work and no play makes Jack a doll boy." "All work and no play makes Jack a doll boy." Repeated after repeated after repeated. And he says, "Do you like it?" You look at the records of her Googling drugs. You look at how many times. How many hours of the night in the afternoon she's looking this stuff up. In between taking care of the family. In between all the stuff that was going on. Visiting doctors. Seeing doctors. Going to Rhode Island. Being told no we can't help you. Calling a suicide hotline. We can't help you. Calling another suicide hotline. We can't help you. My God. What does she have to do? She was reaching out for help. And she was not getting it. She turns herself in to McLean Hospital. You saw the doctor. Nice one. She's testifying. She didn't know. I suggest to you that she didn't know having anything. Let alone psychosis involving a young lady like her going through what she was going through. The government bears the burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt. They bring. For example. Ian Whiffen. The guy. You might remember him. Was the guy that's. I guess he developed. Or helped develop. Celebrate. What you've got when you look at the records. You don't measure on an Apple watch. Well I shouldn't say Apple watch because we know that they didn't have an Apple watch. But on a cell phone. You don't measure going down the stairs. You measure stair climbing. Right? That's what the testimony was. And there were three stairs that were climbed.
[00:48:03] Speaker ?: Okay.
[00:48:04] Speaker 1: The last record is 5:38. At 5:38 p.m. We went through that on cross. What happens to the phone? Don't know. It was on the bed. Was it dropped on the bed and had left there for 20 minutes? She could have been anywhere in the house during all that period of time. Right? Right? You've got a compressed period of time that Patrick leaves to go to the restaurant to pick up the CV. Oh. You heard the guy yesterday say. And then she sent him off to go to CVS. It's on the way. It's on the way. She didn't want him out of the house long. She was in distress. She wanted him home to help with the bathing, to help with the kids, to help putting them to bed. How long is he going to be gone? She Googles it. Is that something that is so nefarious? You'd think that that goes right along the line with the book about good mothers having bad thoughts. My God, she actually Googled the time frame that Patrick would take to go to 3B and pick up the food and then leave and stop at CVS on the way. So I guess the government is suggesting she's not in a psychosis. She's Googling Miralax because the doctor earlier that day told her that the baby needed Miralax. Why would she do that? Because remember the government's opening when they told you she wasn't suffering from the psychosis. She was a woman that didn't want to live a life anymore. Wasn't happy being a mother. Didn't want to live that life. So she's going to kill her kids and hopefully throw herself out the window and not paralyze herself. And then she could run off into the sunset, I guess. That's what their theory was. Along with the fact it wasn't a real good suicide, it was fake. Well now we know, don't we? The mess that this young lady was in, in her brain, my brain is being damaged. I will never be better. That's the evidence. That's the evidence that you have in this case. The burden of proof is on them to prove to you that at the time that she killed these three beautiful kids, that she just wanted to move on with her life. And I suggest to you, just as there's no chicken nugget residue, and then when you look at those photographs, there's a slice of a cucumber, there's a slice of a carrot, there's no chicken nuggets in that bowl. Patrick wouldn't know what the kids were eating. She was the one that would cook their dinner. She was in the refrigerator. But the guy yesterday is like, "Oh, no." Patrick said that the child was eating the chicken McNuggets in the bowl. No. She was getting food out for the two kids. Not the little baby. Two kids for dinner. There's no evidence that she's lying. There's no evidence that she's malingering. And finally, you remember, it was a big deal about whether or not the voices are within the head, or whether or not they're outside of the head. Dr. Resnick's article, with the largest research on voices malingering in the world, indicates that 38% of almost 1,000 people that were examined report voices from inside their head. And it stops. You're going to buy that guy yesterday? He doesn't know what he's talking about. This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect, as his honor instructed you. And they're not going to be able to prove otherwise. And it's their burden, not ours. Thank you.
[00:52:05] Speaker 2: Can I come up?
[00:52:16] Speaker 3: There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from mental illness, and that she tried to kill herself. There's no dispute about that. All of the evidence that you've heard, even the experts that the Commonwealth put before you, say that she was suffering from mental illness, and she tried to kill herself. That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether, at the time she killed Cora, Dawson, and Callan, she knew the difference between right and wrong, and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. This case is not about our mental health system, or how it treats women, or what's in the DSM-5 and what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not on trial here. What's on trial here, what's on trial here, what the issue is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of January 24, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time. And you can use her psychological history and records, the treatment records, to look at both before and after she killed the kids, to look at how she got to that point, what her thought process was, what her motivation was. But it's not the system or the DSM or any of that that caused her to strangle her kids. In fact, she had more access to treatment and care and support than a lot of people do. She had health insurance that covered multiple doctors, multiple specialty programs, treatment at South Shore, at Mass General, her stay at McLean. She had prescription coverage to cover the different trials she went through. She had support at home. She had 18 weeks of maternity leave with the opportunity to extend that as much as she needed, which is excellent, which is what all women should have. But she had that. She had support from both sides of her family, hers and Patrick's. The two older kids, Cora and Dawson, were in preschool three and a half days a week. And she had the nanny, Elaine, who helped with Callan three mornings a week. And she also helped her with housework and with food prep. This wasn't a woman suffering from a lack of care, a lack of resources. She had an abundance of help, an abundance of care. She had all of that and more. And, you know, this doesn't mean that she wasn't struggling, that she wasn't dealing with mental health issues. She was. She had depression. And whether that's from bipolar or major depressive disorder or postpartum depression, it all boils down to she was depressed. Right. And she was trying to deal with that, trying to get help for that. But it wasn't the fault of the providers that she was struggling with this or that she wasn't getting better. They were doing the best they could. You have the records. You heard the testimony. They were doing the best they could with the information she provided them. And that wasn't always accurate information. That wasn't always the full picture. And they were doing the best they could with her level of cooperation and compliance with the plan. You know, take her medications. You know from the records and from the pill bottles what she was prescribed and how she was supposed to take those medications. And you know from the pill bottles what she actually took. And sometimes those two things didn't align with what she told her providers, what she told Patrick, what she told her mother. You take the Zoloft for example. The prescription was for one 25 milligram pill a day for seven days. And then to go up to the 50 milligrams after seven days. She told Dr. Tufts that she took the pills as prescribed for seven days, went up on the eighth day to 50 milligrams. And that's when she had the insomnia and the other side effects and symptoms. She told Patrick that she took the pills for seven days and they had no effect. So she called Dr. Tufts who then told her to increase the dose. Well you know what she told Patrick is not accurate because the pill bottle says take it for a week and then increase it. That was the plan for the beginning. That wasn't the result of a phone call to Dr. Tufts. And you know what she told Dr. Tufts isn't accurate either because only seven pills were taken from the bottle. So that leaves you two options. Either she took the medication as prescribed, one pill a day for seven days, and then didn't increase it. Which she says is what caused the side effects and the insomnia. Or what she did was not take it as prescribed. She didn't do it seven days and ease into it and then increase it. She either missed a dose or increased it early before she was supposed to. Either scenario is not good. She knows as a nurse the importance of following the instructions of your medications. She knows how important it is to follow the plan and do what's on the bottle and do what your provider tells you. And to give that accurate information to your provider. She didn't say I went up a dose, went up to 50 too early. Maybe they could have adjusted that and tried the 25 milligram for longer and eased her into it. But no she told her that she did what she was told and then went up and had these problems. So you can see that in a lot of the medications she has. You have the pill bottles that were turned in by Patrick and a lot of them don't even have many pills missing from the bottles. Some of them have none. The Buspar prescription, the first one, there's only two pills missing. The second prescription, no pills missing. The Lamictal, she never took those pills at all until the night she tried to kill herself. So there's a lack of compliance there, a lack of follow-through, a lack of communication with her providers about what was happening with her and how she was taking the medications. Defense wants you to believe that this is a woman who's begging for help and willing to do anything and everything her providers tell her to do to get better. And she was asking for help. She was. She wanted help. She wanted to get better. But she wanted to get better on her own terms doing things her way, the way she thought she should do them. And as a nurse she knew that's not the right way to approach it. She knew that an accurate medical history, accurate information about your side effects and symptoms, what your thoughts are, that's important for your providers to know. And she didn't do it. And it seems that the reason that she's not necessarily fully compliant and she's doing what she wants to do is she has this desire to be herself again. She just wants to go back to who she was. And she wants it now. And she doesn't want any side effects. She just wants to be herself again and wants it now. And that's understandable. That's relatable. To want to get that magic pill that will fix you immediately and you can go back to being yourself. But she knew that's not how it worked. And you know that's what she was thinking because in the searches on her phone she's searching for things like which antidepressant works the fastest? How fast does Wellbutrin work? And she's searching all of these different medications for the side effects and symptoms, some of them that she never even discusses with her doctors. And you know again it's relatable that she wants to get back to where she was but she had discussions with her providers about how these medications work. And that it takes time for them to get into your system and it takes time for them to work. She even texted her mother about that. About how she knew that she had to be patient and it took weeks for the amitriptyline for example to get into her system and worked. And she knew all of this and she just she couldn't be patient. She couldn't wait. She wanted it faster. She even told Dr. Tufts, it's a note in the records, that she knew the problem was that she wasn't focusing on one provider and following one plan. She knew that going from doctor to doctor, practice to practice, South Shore to MGH, to different programs, not the best way to deal with the situation. She said it in her own words to Dr. Tufts, we need to stick with one provider and stick with one plan to see if it works. And she actually turned down help from at least two locations at various points. We talked a lot about the women and infants records and you know you don't have to believe what I say about them or the witnesses say about them or defense. You can look at the records themselves, page nine, it tells them, it says right there, Patrick was the one who said over medication was the issue. Not the doctors there, not the people evaluating her. What they put was depression, RO, rule out adverse medication effects. That means they have to look into it to see if medication is a problem. But there's a difference between an adverse effect, a symptom or a problem with a medication and being over medicated, taking too much of a medication or taking too many at one time. There's a difference there. And women and infants never said she was over medicated. What they also don't do is turn her away. It's not that she went there and they said, can't help you, go away. They told her, it's in the records, based on the onset of her symptoms, they weren't sure if it was postpartum or peripartum. They saw she had an issue. They wanted to help her. It says there, we offered her. They offered her three programs. They offered her the inpatient medical management program. They offered her a partial hospitalization program for general mental health. And they offered her an outpatient program. And she also put a lot of thought into that, into offering her this care. When they gave her three separate options, considering she's a young mom, maybe she doesn't want to be away from home. But we'll give her the option of being in the hospital and getting her medications right. But we'll also give her the option of the partial hospitalization, where she can, you know, be here during the day and go home to her kids in the evening. And then that third option of being an outpatient and being able to be at home with her kids and come in for appointments. It was very thoughtful of them. It was very well planned out to give her these three options. And it's kind of the exact opposite of just turning someone away and saying, go away, we can't help you. And her response, I'm going to talk to my provider about it for guidance. And she goes to Dr. Tufts. She sees Gelata at some point. You look at the records. She never discussed those options with them. She told them that women and infants turned her away and said she didn't qualify for the program. She didn't discuss those three programs that they offered her. So basically, they give her this offer of help, three different forms of help. And she doesn't want to do them and doesn't discuss it with her provider. And also that first time she goes to Mass General to the emergency room, they offer her a bed at McLean. And she turns it down. She wants help. No one's saying she doesn't want help. But she's making these decisions and doing these things that aren't helping her get help, that are turning away help. Because she wants the help in a certain way, in a certain timeframe. And, you know, all during this time, between September and December of 2022, she's interacting with friends, with family, teachers, gym staff, the nanny, people at gymnastics. Interacting with them in public spaces, in public ways, driving her kids around. All throughout that time, able to know the difference between right and wrong. Able to conform her behavior to the law and to the requirements of society and interacting with others and presenting herself as a functioning adult. A functioning mom. You know that she knew the difference between right and wrong during that time. Because she had those thoughts at the beginning of December of harming her kids. And she told Patrick and her mother about them. But who she didn't tell is important and very telling. She didn't tell a single provider. Not Tufts. Not Gelata. Not Jennifer McAllister. Not Dukes. No one at McLean. No one at NGH. No one at South Shore. Didn't tell any of them. And why? Because the police might take away her kids. That's a rational thought. That telling mandated reporters that you're having a thought of harming your kids. That they might be taken away for their safety. That's a rational thought. And it also shows she knew it was a bad thought. A wrong thought. Because you don't think someone's going to take your kids away because you're thinking something positive or neutral. It's because it's bad. It's because it's wrong. It's because it's against the law. So she knew that it was wrong. And she was able to conform her behavior to the law because she didn't tell those providers. She went in and met with them and talked about what she was experiencing and talked about her depression. And not only did she not tell them. She lied to them. They asked her, are you having thoughts of harming others? Do you have homicidal ideation? She told Tufts no. She told Gelata no. She told Dukes no. She told Goodheart no. Every day at McLean she said no. At MGH she said no. So not only is she hiding it, she's lying about it. She's controlling her behavior. She's controlling the presentation she presents to her providers. Let me get to her being admitted to McLean. You know up to that point, all of the drugs she's taken from September through December, they weren't given at the same time. The most she ever had at one time was two to three medications. And usually if it was three, that third medication was the Benadryl or the hydroxyzine that's like Benadryl or the Ativan or Valium as needed for anxiety. But most of the time it was two medications. And the way they did those medications, you heard from Dr. Stathoff, a man who's examined thousands of patients with psychosis, who's treated women with postpartum psychosis, who's treated women who have killed their children. That man who apparently has no expertise. You heard from him that the medication trials were reasonable and rational. She tried a medication. It didn't work or they had side effects. They stopped the medication. They tried something else. They tried a different combination. And unfortunately, with mental health, there's no blood test or CAT scan or MRI that you can do that says, well, you have bipolar or you have schizophrenia. And unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. So what the providers have to do is rely on what the patient is telling them. Hope that information is accurate. Rely on what they're observing about the patient and make a diagnosis. And then based on that diagnosis, have a treatment plan. And every patient reacts differently to medication. One patient could do fine on it. The next not. So they have to do that trial and error process. And it's normal. It's typical. It's reasonable. And that's what they did for her. And even if you believe that the number of different medications she took over that time or the combination of those medications affected her negatively, after McLean, they were out of her system. Some of them have been out of her system for months. Zoloft she stopped in October. Other pills she stopped in November or December. And that last one, the Seroquel, that she really had a bad reaction to, is out of her system. The only medication she's on leaving McLean is Trazodone for sleep and Valium for anxiety. And that's it when she leaves there. And why does she leave there? She wants to go to Koya's birthday party. And that's relatable. That's understandable. She wants to be that mom again who can throw her daughter a party and enjoy it. It's completely understandable why she would want to leave. But she also knew she wasn't there. She knew how she was feeling. She knew she was depressed. She knew she needed help. But she wanted to be that mom she was more. And there was nothing McLean could do to keep her there. She said she denied suicidal ideation. She denied homicidal ideation. She said she wasn't hearing voices or seeing anything. They saw the entire time she was there. No signs of psychosis. In fact, every doctor she saw from Tufts in September all the way through Tufts at January 23rd. None of them saw any signs of psychosis ever. So they're all wrong. All these different doctors at all these different practices. They're all collectively together wrong. That doesn't make sense. But she shows when she's leaving McLean no signs of psychosis. And they even give her a test. A task to do to see if she can manage her mental health outside of the hospital. Make an appointment. Pick a doctor. Make an appointment. And she does it. She decides on Dr. Tufts. She makes the follow-up appointment. She gets the documentation and gives it to them. Showing she can manage her mental health. They have to let her go at that point. She's there voluntarily. There's no grounds to keep her if she's not showing she's a danger to herself or others. So they let her go home. And at home, again, all throughout January, she's showing her ability to know right from wrong and to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law in all the activities she does in January. First there's the birthday party. She's throwing the birthday party. She's monitoring the kids, making sure, you know, typical mom birthday party stuff. Everyone's eating, getting cake, singing happy birthday. You saw her in the video. She appeared happy and smiling. Normal. Everyone that interacted with her said, "Seemed a little tired, but okay." The Museum of Science. You have that video. The Museum of Science in Boston can be crowded and overwhelming on a good day, and she's there with three kids under five with her husband. You see her monitoring them, caring for them, doing the exhibits, showing them what to do with the exhibits. If you watched that video, and you didn't know who the Clancy family was, and we asked you, pick out the woman who is depressed, pick out the woman who wants to kill herself, pick out the woman who is about to kill her kids. You couldn't pick her out. She's completely calm. All her behaviors are typical and normal, because she's able to control her behavior. She's able to be suicidal and feel those things, but control her behavior, control her thoughts, and present that image to the world. She's able to do it at the Cape Codder as well, similar scenario. She's able to watch the kids when Patrick goes to brunch. She's able to watch the boys when Patrick and Cora go skiing on the 16th. She's able to interact with the carnies on January 22nd. And yeah, they both initially said she was quiet, but then they both admitted she was always kind of quiet. But she was able to interact with them, chat with them in the kitchen. Seemed okay. And between January 7th and January 21st, her mother never comes to the house to intervene. Her sister, a licensed social worker, a mandated reporter, never comes to the house to intervene or help, never makes a report. And they're in contact with her every day, texting with her, calling with her almost every day, and never see any signs that they should be concerned or worried or intervene. And you have those text messages between the defendant and her mom. And her mom, obviously, was very attentive, very caring. Asked very pointed questions. How are you doing? How are you sleeping? How are the medications? Obviously, a very concerned, loving mom. How does Lindsay answer? I'm getting a little better. I'm sleeping better. She said the only time her sleep was interrupted is if Cora had a bellyache or one of the kids was up. But she's doing better every day. She's sleeping better. She's feeling better. She still says I'm not myself. I'm not where I want to be. But she's moving in the right direction. And we have that text from her mom the day she leaves on the 22nd, headed back home. I'm glad to see you're doing so much better. Now her mom now wants you to believe that she lied to her. That she wasn't doing better and she was just trying to encourage her. But there are so many things you can say to your daughter who's struggling with mental health other than lie to her if you want to encourage her. You've got this. Take it day by day. I'm here for you. We're going to get through this. But she wants you to think she lied to her when she said she was doing better. But you know that wasn't a lie. You know that she was doing better or seemed to be. And that her mom said I'm glad you're doing so much better. Because Patrick said the same thing. He said she was doing better in January. Every day was better. The 24th was the best day. They had hope. Because that's what she wanted to show them. The only person during that time that she gave even a little glimpse of maybe she wasn't doing that much better. was Dr. Tufts. And she told Dr. Tufts that she was feeling depressed. Which is why Dr. Tufts prescribed the 10 milligrams of amitriptyline a day. Very low dose. And then she told Dr. Tufts again, still not helping. And so Dr. Tufts raised it to the 20 milligrams. Again, a very low dose. A dose a child could take. And that shows how cautious and conservative Dr. Tufts was being in the treatment of this patient. who had had those interactions with medications previously. She was being cautious and conservative and acting with care for the patient by slowly increasing the medication. But even with Dr. Tufts, she still denied having a suicide plan. Denied wanting to hurt anyone else. Denied voices. Denied visual hallucinations. Showed no signs of psychosis. All the way up to January 23rd. Nothing. And if you look at their journal, you look at this journal that defense counsel showed you. She's very detailed. Excuse me. About when she took medication. What she took. The amount she took. What the effect was. For months. Starting in October. And going all the way up to January. And where it stops. January 18th. Someone who's been so meticulous about everything. All the way up to January 18th. And it just stops. And it's as if she's decided she's done trying. She's decided that it's too much. And she doesn't want to do it anymore. And so she just stops keeping track of the prescriptions. And then we get to January 24th. Everything that happened that day. Every person she interacted with. Every situation she was in. Shows you she knew the difference between right and wrong. And she could conform her behavior to the law. The doctor's appointment first thing in the morning. She's able to drive there. She's able to interact with medical professionals. She's able to seem absolutely fine and normal. And this is a doctor who's treated the kids since Cora was a baby. This is a pediatrician who's known the family. And has known Lindsay for almost five years. A woman who's trained. Trained in recognizing the signs of postpartum depression. She told you she looks for flat affect. She looks for teariness. And some other things that she told you. She saw none of that. She was able to control herself. And interact with her in a perfectly normal concerned mother way. Able to get home from that appointment. She plays with the kids. She takes them outside. She's sending those messages and photos to her mom and to Patrick. Basically saying, look, this is a good day. I'm having a good day. Everything's good. I'm getting better. Here's proof. This is what I'm doing. You start to see the planning at about four o'clock in the afternoon. And this is on her phone. You can see her search for Miralax. Kids Miralax at 4:02. And then a little while later at 4:13, you see her search for takeout from 3V. And then immediately after, she does the Apple Maps search to see how long it takes to get to 3V. Well, defense wants you to believe that, you know, she was checking that because she didn't want him gone for too long. She wanted him home. She was in distress. If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food at home. Have him cook. Get delivery. Get DoorDash. Go to one of the other restaurants that Patrick mentioned that were two minutes down the road. And she didn't have to look up on Apple Maps to see where this restaurant was. You heard from Patrick. They had been there at least three times in the months before. She had lived in that area for four years. She knew where it was. She knew, generally, how long it would take to get there. What she needed to know was how long specifically on that night it would take to get there. Because she knew she would have a limited amount of time to do what she wanted to do. And what she had decided to do was to kill the children and then kill herself. And so she needed to know, not generally, but exactly how much time will I have. And then obviously sees that that's not enough time. So then she searches CVS. And not only does she search CVS, she calls them. Calls them and asks them if they have Kitsmarilax and they say no. But they have Pedialax and one other medication. And then she asks, is it in stock? Because she needs to know not only what they have, but is it in stock? Because she's adding to this errand that she's sending Patrick out on. And she has to make sure she's not interrupted. She doesn't want that call at 5:33. She wants him to go to CVS and have the medication there and get it and then go on to 3V. So she has time to do what she needs to do. So that's why she's calling to see what they have and make sure it's in stock. It's a level of planning there and thinking and decision-making that Dr. Satov referenced. And then after that, she texts Patrick, you know, it's been a long day. Can we do 3V? And he's on board with that. And she's like, okay, check out the menu. Let's get on this. And he asks her what she's getting. She tells him the Mediterranean Power Bowl. He says he's getting the pork belly video photo. 5:10 p.m. She's calling that order in. She's talking to the hostess. She gets the order accurate. She is able to answer questions about how she wants her food. She's able to recall and give Patrick's phone number and his name as the person picking up. And then Patrick's leaving to go get the food. And as he's leaving, the kids are in the living room. The kids are in the living room on the couch eating. The defendant's in the doorway near the basement door. And she says to him, oh, basically, oh, by the way, can you go to CVS? Acting like it's this last-minute thought, like, oh, by the way, can you get this? And not something that she's been planning for over an hour. She knew about the PDLX and she knew about 3D and she knew all of that before she even asked him about dinner. But it's like, oh, can you go to CVS on your way and get kids PDLX? And he, of course, is like, sure, I'll get that. And he heads out the door at 5:15. And you know that's the time he leaves because he says to her, yeah, just text it to me. And that's such a normal kind of interaction that we have in your common sense of life experience. You're headed out the door to run an errand and someone in your home says, oh, while you're up, can you get me X, Y, and Z? And you're like, yeah, sure, just text it to me. Because you don't want to get there and be like, oh, what did they want me to get? It's such a normal interaction, right? Can you get this for me? Sure, text it to me. And he heads out the door and she texts it to him at 5:15 p.m. And then he goes to CVS. Even though she's told him what to get and they have it, he still makes that call at 5:33. She calls him back at 5:34. And then he heads out to 3V and then comes home. And when he gets home, puts the things on the counter and it's quiet. It's quiet in a way that a house with three kids under five should not be during waking hours. So he calls out to them, no answer. He goes to the basement door and opens it and yells down and no answer. And he closes the door. He calls her phone, no answer. He goes upstairs and is able to unlock the door and see the blood and see the window open and go down to her. And when he goes down to her, she's no longer actively bleeding. He doesn't have to put pressure on any of her wounds. And he says to her, what did you do? And her response is, I tried to kill myself. And then it's, where are the kids? In the basement. It's not, I heard a voice. I was compelled to do this. I didn't want to do this. Go help the kids. They're hurt. They're in the basement. Go save them. No. It's, I tried to kill myself. And the kids are in the basement. And defense wants you to believe that conversation couldn't have happened because of how she sounded on the 911 call. But you heard from the doctors, people can deteriorate over time. When he first gets there, she's able to talk to him. And as that progresses, she's losing the ability to talk. And there's nothing in the medical records about her throat being crushed or her thyroid being crushed. You can look at that. Her thyroid was bruised. Her vertebrae were broken. But her throat wasn't crushed. She had the ability to make sound and to communicate. And if you listen to the 911, he's talking to her. And then he's answering the 911 dispatchers about what she said. So even if we can't hear her clearly and we can't understand what she was saying, he could. You know from all of the evidence that you have, putting aside the experts, but all the evidence you have in terms of crime scene photos and videos and the witness testimony and the medical records, you know how she killed them, where she killed them, what time she killed them, and the order that she killed them in. Even without what she told the doctors about the order, that's something you can infer from the evidence. Because you know, in order to bring the kids to the basement and strangle each one of them. And then come upstairs and get a knife and have a phone call. And then go upstairs to the second floor. And either take hand pills or pills or crush them however she did it. Take the pills. And then cut herself. And it's not just three cuts. It's the hesitation marks. And then the cuts themselves. And then you know she bled in a couple spots for a little while. Because you heard from Sherry Crook how the pooling in front of the mirror is someone, basically the blood dropping down. And someone there for a period of time. And then over closer to the window the same thing. So she's bleeding in front of the mirror for a period of time. Over by the window for a period of time. And then she goes out of the window. And whether she dove out or climbed out and slid down. Whatever you think that evidence shows from the shingles and everything you've seen. Whatever happens she goes out of the window. And she's on the ground. And by the time Patrick gets there she's no longer bleeding. So for all of that to happen in that short amount of time while Patrick's gone. She had to have started killing the kids immediately after he left. Now defense wants you to believe that it was after the phone call. That after the phone call she heard the voice and killed the children. But there's a few things about that that don't make sense. First is what she told Dr. Statov. That when she gets the call she's at the fridge getting chicken nuggets out of the fridge to make dinner. You heard from Patrick. When he's leaving Dawson is sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl. There's the crime scene photo of two bowls on the couch. Yes the pink one seems to have some vegetables in it. But there's the blue one there as well. And Patrick saw Dawson eating the chicken nuggets and green beans.
[01:28:43] Speaker ?: There's the brown beans.
[01:28:44] Speaker 3: So why would the defendant make that up? Why would she say she's doing that during the phone call? Because if she's already killed the kids because of a voice and being compelled and it being against her will and she's like a puppet. Then she can't get a call and miss it and then call the person back and have a conversation and then hang up. A puppet can't do those things. Those are decisions and choices and actions that she's controlling. So she has to explain away the phone call because her behavior and her ability to have the phone call don't make sense. If she's being compelled by her voice. If she's not in control. And you further on that you have the phone. You have the flights climbed. There were two flights climbed. You can see you have Ian Whiffen's report. You can see there were two flights climbed. The first ends at 5:33. So it makes sense that she has killed the kids in the basement and she has come up the stairs. And at 5:33 she's in the kitchen and she's getting the knife. And then Patrick calls. Everything she's done. Everything from the research to making sure what they have. To telling him to get it. To making sure it's on stock. All of that. And he still calls her. He still interrupts her. And then she gets the knife and she goes upstairs. And she's at the top of the stairs by 5:38. So the phone calls from 5:33 to just before 5:35. So if you want to believe that the voices happened, the voice happened after the call. And the killing of the kids happened after the call. Between 5:33 and 5:38 she doesn't go down and come back up and come back up and come back up. There's nothing on that phone about that. And there wouldn't be enough time for her to bring those kids down to the basement and strangle each one in 3 minutes. You heard from the doctors and Dr. Lapisado included. It could take up to 30 seconds for each child to go unconscious. And then strangulation would have to continue for another one to two minutes to cause death. And Dr. Lapisado wanted you to believe that the band could just stay there around their necks by themselves. But you have the bands. They're exercise bands. You pull them. They resist. You let go. They snap back. I had to hold them up to show her in circles like around someone's neck. And when I let go, they expand it. They don't stay around someone's neck on their own. You have to pull them. And you know they weren't knotted. Patrick never testified that they were knotted. So I'll take this one. He testified that he didn't have a clear memory. But he remembered that they were possibly looped. And I asked him, like, when you're tying your shoe that first loop before you do a bow? And he said, yeah, kind of like that. So not knotted. Not tied. But even his memory wasn't the best. You heard him on that call. And that's why we had to play the call for you. Because you could hear him. You could hear when he found each kid. And you knew that he had the phone with him when he found each kid. Because his voice, it never sounded like he was in another room. It always sounded so painfully right there. And so you know he's holding the phone. And he's not untying knots. And he wouldn't have had the time to untie knots. In that short amount of time. And then you have the firefighters looking in the window, seeing him with Dawson. And he's not untying a knot or unlooping something. They say they see him in an unwinding motion. Unwrapping. That's why you have to listen to the 911. To show that she did stand over their limp bodies. And strangle them for one to two minutes after they went unconscious. Because those weren't knotted. They weren't tied. They don't just stay there on their own. And even if you wanted to believe that at 5:38, she goes upstairs and puts the phone on the bed. And then she goes down and kills the kids and she does everything. 5:38 to just after 6:00 PM. Because he's making the call to her at 6:09. There's not enough time between 5:38 and just after 6:00 PM to kill all three kids. To get the knife. To take the pills. To cut herself. To bleed. To go out of the window. To stop bleeding. And Patrick to get there. In 20 odd minutes. It's not enough time. So you know. She killed those kids. As soon as he left. And when she got the call from him. She had already strangled them. And she didn't tell him. She didn't ask for help. She didn't say, "Oh my God. What have I done?" She's a nurse. She didn't go down and try to do CPR. And help them. No. She lied. She stayed calm. She presented herself as normal. She had complete control over her behavior. And her emotions. She had a normal conversation with him. Because she didn't want him coming home. Because she needed to finish her plan. She still had to kill herself. So why did she do it? No defense would have you believe that. A mother who was this good. Who loved her kids this much. Which we're not denying. Would never harm her kids this way. Unless she was so mentally ill that she was hearing these command voices and had no choice. But you know that's not the world we live in. Dr. Resnick told you. Most women who kill their children do it in child abuse. Most women who kill their children don't do it because of mental illness. Mothers kill their children. And it's horrible. And it's awful. But it happens. So why did she specifically do it? She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was done. She didn't want to try anymore. She felt damaged. But those kids. Those kids were her protective factor. Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery. And so she had to remove the protective factor. And I'm not saying she was happy about it. I'm saying that it was what she had to do to end her misery. But it was a choice. It was a choice. She could have kept trying. She could have, you know, moved down to her mother's. She could have just, she could have killed herself and left her kids alive. But it was a choice to take them with her. It was a horrible choice. And it's a choice that we don't want to think about that a mother could make. Because that doesn't make us feel safe or comfortable in this world. But it's a choice she made. She knew it was wrong. Because she sent Patrick out to do it. She could conform her behavior. Because she waited until he was gone. And didn't tell him what was going on on those phone calls. Didn't call 911 for help. Didn't lock herself in a bathroom upon hearing this voice. She knew it was wrong. She didn't take advantage of this situation. She created this situation. This opportunity to do what she wanted. And when she woke in the hospital. And she knew she was alive. And the kids weren't. She knew what she did was wrong. She said she felt horrified. And then while still with a tube in her throat. She's asking. Do I have a lawyer? And that's. It's not. What defense said. It was after surgery. And she's delirious. Look at the records. She had surgery on the 27th. She's asking if she has a lawyer on the 26th. Do I have a lawyer? Because she knows what she did was wrong. And then. Then we get. The justification. The excuse of the voice. And there are a few reasons why. The voice doesn't make sense. The first is. She immediately obeyed it. Dr. Resnick. Their expert. The one who knows everything about postpartum psychosis. He teaches other psychiatrists and psychologists. He writes books and chapters and articles. About how this is a huge red flag. If someone immediately obeys a voice. You heard him talk about Andrea Yates. About how she heard voices to kill her children for months. And what did she do? She committed herself five times. She tried to kill herself twice. To avoid harming her children. Counselors.
[01:38:58] Speaker 2: Counselors.
[01:38:59] Speaker 3: That was all accurate.
[01:39:00] Speaker 2: Let's move on from that.
[01:39:04] Speaker 3: Lindsey Clancy. Here's his voice one time. And does it. Doesn't try to lock herself in the bathroom. Call Patrick. Call 9-1-1. Doesn't try to. Leave. You know. Yeah. Leaving little children alone for 20-30 minutes. Not. Not the greatest option. But it's better than killing them. She doesn't try any tactics to avoid the voice. She just obeys. Another red flag. That Resnick. Was asked about. And teaches. And writes about. Is that. She only heard the voice one time. She never heard it before. And she hasn't heard it since. Somehow that works. It's a red flag. That she's making up the voice. Another one. Is that. What she said. The voice holder. Isn't consistent. At the hospital. She says. The voice said. You have to kill your children. So you can kill yourself. Because. They'll suffer without you. What she tells. A lot of the doctors is. It says. This is your last chance. You have to kill the kids. So you can kill yourself. And then. She tells the chaplain. You have to. A third version. You have to kill the kids. So you can kill yourself. Because they're in danger. There's these three different versions. Another flag. The. Red flag. It doesn't make sense. That the voice. She's saying. The voice says. All these different things.
[01:40:27] Speaker ?: And then.
[01:40:28] Speaker 3: The third thing. The fourth thing. Rather. Is that. It's vague. In it's command. It doesn't tell her. How to kill the kids. Where. With what. Nothing. It says. Kill the kids.
[01:40:41] Speaker ?: So you can kill yourself.
[01:40:42] Speaker 3: So she had to choose. Where. The basement. She had to choose. How. Strangulation. She had to choose. With what. Exercise band. Choose again. Exercise band. Choose again. Exercise band. Choose again. Exercise band. Choose again. Exercise band. She had to choose. How to kill herself. Now. If you're being. Compelled. By this voice. And you have. No. Free will whatsoever. You're just doing. Your body's acting. On the voice. Why wouldn't. You just kill yourself. The same way. You killed the children. You strangled them. You hang yourself. That's acting on compulsion. That's no choice. She tried. Three. Different. Ways. And none of them similar. To what happened to the kids. And I'll take this other quarter now. And explain to you. Why. We got into. The superficiality. Of the wounds. And why we got into. The height of the window. And. Why we got into. How. She didn't take enough pills. To actually kill herself. We're not saying. She didn't want. To kill herself. We're talking about. That third prong. Of suicidality. That Dr. Satov. Talked about. Remember. He talked about. Aloneness. And feeling burdensome. But that third category. Capability. She wanted to kill herself. But her natural instinct. To live. Was fighting against that. So she took pills. But you heard the toxicologist. They were all at. Therapeutic levels. Or below. Except the circle. Which was a little elevated. She cut herself. But you saw the cuts. On the meaty. Needy part of her arm. Horizontally. No arteries. No major blood vessels. Didn't need to be stitched. The next day. The one on her neck. Didn't need to be stitched. At all. She knew as a nurse. Those weren't going to kill her. But she was trying. And then going out of the window. Twelve. Thirteen feet. She landed the wrong way. And ended up paralyzed. On the frozen ground. But. You know. The idea that falling out of. A twelve foot window. Is going to definitely kill you. Not necessarily. And so. She wanted to. She was trying. She was trying. In all these different ways. But. She just couldn't get over that third prong. The capability of actually killing herself. And that goes against it being a voice. Because if she's compelled to do it. If this voice is making her do it. She would just do it. There would be no fight. There would be no struggle. There would be no resistance. There would be no resistance. To dying. But there was. I guess the third one is Dr. Zeisel. We've never said that he told. The defendant what to say. Not one witness. Not one piece of evidence. The only person. That said. That Dr. Zeisel. That we were trying to say. Dr. Zeisel. Told her to make up the voice. Is defense counsel. He's the only one that asked about it. He's the only one that brought it up. We have never said that. We have never said that. In this courtroom. And no witness has said that. That we've asked. She knew what she did was wrong. She could conform her behavior. To the law. And chose not to. And she didn't expect to have any consequences because she expected to die with her children. And we get to. And then. What we have to prove. What we have to prove. Is that. First degree is deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty. You know it was deliberate premeditation. Because of the way she killed them. And the way they died. And the order. Also shows a rationality. The order she killed them in. Because. Cora and Dawson. Are older. If she had tried. To strangle one in front of the other. They would have known this is bad. And they would have tried to intervene. Or run and hide. And she had a very limited time. She didn't have time to try to find a child. Who ran off and hid. So taking Dawson first. And moving him to a separate room. Having Cora stay with Callan. And having Dawson go in another room. That's rational. That makes sense. That's ordered thinking. And we didn't show you that post. That she made about Dawson. Being a handful. And not being compliant. To show she was a bad mom. We showed it to you. Because it proves. She knew. That he was a handful. She knew. That he was less likely to be compliant. To just go along. She knew. That he might struggle. And so it made sense. Rationally. To remove him. And separate him first. And kill him first. And she brought him into that room. Into the office. And closed the door. And she wrapped that band. Around his little neck. And she squeezed. Until he was unconscious. As the blood's pooling in his face. And causing those blood vessels to burst. Causing him pain. And panic. And confusion. And defense calls Dr. La Posada. To say no. It wasn't 20 or 30 seconds. It was only 5 or 10 seconds. Until he went unconscious. I'm sorry. How many seconds is it okay. For them to have been in pain. And panic. And confusion. How about it wasn't okay for one second. For any of those children. To feel that. And they all felt it. All. For up to 30 seconds. And then. She continued strangling. Their limp bodies. For one to two minutes. To make sure. They were dead. were dead. Deliberate premeditation. And then extreme atrocity and cruelty. The indifference that she showed to their pain, to their struggle, to their suffering. Leaving them there on the floor with the bands around their necks, completely indifferent because she had a plan and she was following it through. Just think of that. The being strangled and the pain and the confusion that they're going through. And it's being done by their mom. Their mom is the one that's hurting them. Their mom is the one that's killing them. That's extreme atrocity and cruelty. She didn't see them in that moment. As individual human beings with rights, with dreams, with futures. Individually belonging to them. You heard about the three kids. Cora wanted to be a doctor and a mom. Dawson wanted to be a firefighter. Talon never got the chance to dream. Who knows what future he would have dreamed for himself. She killed them. And she left them there on the floor with the bands around their necks. She didn't bring them up to their beds and put them with their favorite stuffed animal and cover them up gently and lovingly, leaving them peacefully there. No. She left them discarded on the basement floor like broken toys because she was done playing the game. You know to a moral certainty. She is guilty.
[01:48:37] Speaker 2: She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. She is guilty. All right. So we're going to return now to the instructions that I have. In rereading my instructions, I just kind of want to make sure that something's clear. I'm going to ask you to go back to page six. I think we're talking about murder in the second degree. Everybody get there. All right. And I just kind of wanted to make clear that you may consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing, including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant for consumption of prescription drugs in determining any of the elements in the murder in the second degree charge as well. I mentioned that for some of the others, but specifically for the charge in the murder of the second degree, there's an element regarding intent. Okay. So I just kind of wanted to make that clear. It probably is suggested in that, but as I read through it, I just kind of wanted to remind you that you can, as I said, you can consider the defendant's mental condition at the time of the killing, including any credible evidence of mental impairment or the effect on the defendant for consumption of prescription drugs in determining the elements in murder in the second degree. All right. So I hope they clear things up rather than confusing you. Now I'm going to go to the general principles in regards to this case. All right. Now, as I said to you before, I'm incorporating the instructions that I gave earlier before the closing arguments with these instructions. So I want to talk about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. Once again, the indictments against Ms. Clancy are only an accusation. They're not evidence. The defendant has denied that she's guilty of the crimes charged in these indictments. The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of the charges against her. This presumption of innocence is a rule of law that compels you to find to find the defendant not guilty unless and until the Commonwealth produces evidence from whatever source that proves that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof never shifts. The defendant is not required to call any witnesses or produce any evidence since she is presumed to be innocent. The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires you to find the defendant not guilty unless your guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Your verdict, whether it is guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. All right. Now, reasonable doubt. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges