Lindsay Clancy Moves to Speed Up the Trial. Will It Backfire? (Trial Day 6)

[00:00:00] Lindsay: Tonight, we are back with day six of the Lindsay Clancy trial. The defense lawyer opened the day by making one thing quite clear. He is done watching this case drag. He's even willing to have Lindsay Clancy waive some important rights just to speed things up. Will that decision come back to haunt them, or was it a great move? The battle over what happened the night Lindsay Clancy went out the window of her bedroom is heating up. The defense says the prosecution story only works if Lindsay is some kind of Spider-Man. And the defense is trying to hammer home their claim that the Commonwealth botched collecting evidence in this case, maybe so badly that they wound up hurting their own case. So let's get into it. Lindsay Clancy is on trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts, accused of murdering her own children in January of 2023. The prosecution says this was entirely intentional, planned by Lindsay. She knew exactly what she was doing. The defense says Lindsay was in postpartum psychosis, and she cannot be held criminally responsible under Massachusetts law for what happened. We started today with Lindsay giving up some of her rights. It was in the form of a stipulation. Now, a stipulation is an agreement between the two different parties to a lawsuit, a set of facts that they agree to, and that the jury can accept as fact. Even the two sides agreed that this is really what happened. So the judge wanted to be 100% sure that Lindsay Clancy understood exactly what she was doing. So the judge asked her questions first to make sure she understood what was happening, and not just what she understood about what the prosecution had to prove or do, but also if she understood what she is giving up as part of this stipulated agreement. [00:02:08] Speaker 2: Home to this stipulation. Home to this stipulation, you're giving up some important rights. So I kind of want to go over those with you at this time. You understand, by law, you're presumed to be innocent of each charge against you, and you do not have to prove your innocence. All right, so instead, a trial of commonwealth, as I said to you before, has the burden of proving you are guilty of each element of the charges against you. And by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up your right to force the commonwealth to prove the facts that are contained in these stipulations. Do you understand that? Yes, Your Honor. All right. You're also at trial, where we are now, you have the right to confront the witnesses that would testify about these facts. And by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up that right with respect to these stipulated facts. Do you understand that? [00:02:59] Lindsay: Yes, Your Honor. [00:03:00] Speaker 2: All right. You also, if you wanted to, could call your own witnesses at the trial to contest these stipulated facts if you wanted to. Do you understand you'd be giving up that right by entering into this stipulation? [00:03:14] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor. All right. [00:03:16] Speaker 2: You also, at trial, have the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify at this. You understand, by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up in a limited way that right with respect to just those facts. [00:03:31] Lindsay: Yes, Your Honor. [00:03:32] Speaker 2: All right. Are you doing this willingly and voluntarily? [00:03:36] Lindsay: Yes, I am. All right. [00:03:37] Speaker 2: Has anyone forced you or threatened you to enter into this stipulation? [00:03:42] Lindsay: No, Your Honor. [00:03:42] Speaker 2: Have you had enough time to talk to counsel about this? [00:03:45] Lindsay: Yes, I have. The judge went through that series of questions, making sure Lindsay understood that she was waiving her right to make the Commonwealth prove each and every one of the facts to which she was about to stipulate. And then the judge made findings and found she understood. [00:04:03] Speaker 2: I find that Ms. Clancy is knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and willingly entered into the stipulation of the facts that are contained and summarized in Exhibit J for identification. I find that she is competent to enter into this stipulation. I find she understands the consequences of entering into this stipulation. So accordingly, I now accept the proposed stipulation of facts. [00:04:30] Lindsay: So the defense lawyer then made a statement to the court. It wasn't required. He simply stood up and volunteered this for everyone to hear. And he explained he is trying to move things along. Let's stop delaying things for what doesn't really matter. And this is not just once, but three times today that we saw this same sort of approach from the defense lawyer. So you'll hear him right here explain why he's doing this. [00:04:59] Speaker 3: I just would like, Your Honor, for the record, to again reiterate the fact that we have not been contesting the government's case in chief, if you will, have been agreeing to evidence. And this stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens, if not more, witnesses to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bands, DNA, all of that. Rather than have days of testimony, the stipulation will avoid that. So that's why we're stipulating to it. [00:05:32] Lindsay: I thought this is going to be huge. There's going to be some real meat behind us because such a production was made of making sure that Lindsay understood and knew exactly what she was doing. But at least so far, in terms of what we heard, all it really did was save us chain of custody to get in the toxicology of the children. They've mentioned it will also be used with DNA. But frankly, we all owe the defense lawyer a debt of gratitude. According to what they read, 12 different witnesses between the three children would have been brought just to do the chain of custody for the toxicology for the children. In other words, to show, yes, this blood was taken. This is how it was taken. This is who collected it. This is where it was sent next. This is how it was labeled and packaged, that kind of thing. And as it turned out, all of that was really pretty pointless. It's no wonder the defense attorney agreed. This was about toxicology for the children. If they had had drugs in their system, that could have been a very important point for the prosecution. It could have indicated that Lindsay was pre-planning what was happening. It could have helped the state, especially if they could show how long the drugs had been on board. But we heard from the toxicology report and absolutely nothing was found in the children's systems. So that's not evidence that Lindsay was pre-planning this. It's not evidence of intent. So why then agree to this? I think it's exactly what the attorney said. He has shown over and over that he's not going to waste anyone's time. This is really just basic stuff. It's only a matter of time until the proper foundation is laid and it's going to come in. So he might as well agree to it. Why waste everyone's time just going through the motions? And you may be wondering, why do we have these motions? Well, the reason is because when evidence comes in in court, we want to make sure that it's exactly the right evidence. Is this really the blood from this particular person that was then tested? And was it tested properly? And was it tested by people who will vouch for the work that they did? We want to make sure all of that so that we know the evidence that comes in is solid, concrete, and actually related to this case, accurate. But the defense lawyer, I believe, is convinced that stretching this case out hurts Lindsay Clancy. The defense wants to lean into and get to the part where it starts trying to prove that Lindsay was in postpartum psychosis and that's why she did this. That's where the defense case lies. So the second big point for the day was that Lindsay was badly hurt herself. Now, I should say that's not the second point. That's the second battle point for the day because the two sides are in complete disagreement over this. The prosecution says Lindsay actually was faking an attempt on her life. What she really was doing was setting up a defense where she could claim that she was mentally insane, but that what she did was she wound up admittedly badly hurting herself, but it was an accident. She didn't really mean to. She thought she was going to just mildly hurt herself. It was a surprise to her as much as anyone that she was so badly hurt. So that's the direction the prosecution seems to be heading with the questions it's asking. The defense is busy proving this was no small injury to her. She cut her wrists, her neck. She jumped out a window. She took a bunch of pills. How is that not a real attempt? And that's what they're arguing. One of the ways that the prosecution has attempted to make part of its point is by pointing to the cuts on the wrists and the neck and saying these really aren't that deep. Many witnesses for the prosecution have come in and said that the wounds were superficial, including a doctor today from South Shore Hospital, the first hospital where Lindsay was taken right after she was found on the ground outside the window. This doctor was a surgical doctor and explained there was no surgery needed for the wrist or the neck. That's part of the prosecution's suggestion that this was not a real, honest to goodness, unaliving attempt. It was just a pretense. Now, the defense, of course, contends Lindsay was very sick. And in fact, cross-examined the doctor by pointing out all of the care that Lindsay did not receive at South Shore, but did receive four hours later when she was transferred to Brigham and Women's in Boston. [00:10:26] Speaker 3: The time that she left was after you all had provided the treatment that you were able to provide to Lindsay as a patient, right? [00:10:36] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:10:37] Speaker 3: And you reached the end of your rope. She had to be transferred because she needed immediate high-level medical care, right? [00:10:45] Speaker 4: She needed higher level of care. [00:10:47] Speaker 3: Higher level of care. [00:10:48] Lindsay: The defense went a little further today, sort of suggesting that South Shore maybe wasn't giving Lindsay Clancy good care. Maybe it wasn't really competent care that she was receiving. And fortunate then that she got to Brigham and Women's. [00:11:06] Speaker 3: That's because she came in at a low temperature, right? [00:11:08] Lindsay: Yes. [00:11:10] Speaker 3: And did you use IV fluids? [00:11:12] Speaker 4: I would have to check the record, but that is a common intervention. [00:11:16] Speaker 3: Your memory would be that you believe that you used IV fluids, but you'd have to have me get out of the box and check the record to ask that question, right? [00:11:24] Speaker 4: Yes, correct. [00:11:25] Speaker 3: Okay. It didn't really work out very well, though, did it? Because you know that when she was brought to Boston after all of the time that she was treated at your hospital, she was still core temperature of 82 when she hit Brigham and Women's. [00:11:39] Speaker 2: No, allow it if she knows. [00:11:42] Speaker 4: I did not look at the medical record from another institution. I only reviewed my note from South Shore Hospital. [00:11:48] Speaker 3: Did you know that your patient had coded shortly after being brought to Brigham and Women's Hospital? [00:11:55] Speaker 4: No. [00:11:55] Speaker 3: Did you know that she had to have massive transfusions right after being brought to the hospital in Boston? [00:12:01] Speaker 4: No. [00:12:02] Speaker 3: So how about, did you know that they introduced pleural tubes in both sides of her chest and removed many, many cc's of blood from both the right and left pleural cavity? [00:12:16] Speaker 4: No, I do not know that about the patient when she was not at South Shore Hospital. [00:12:20] Lindsay: So the doctor explained that EMTs had not told the medical personnel anything about Lindsay Clancy having lost a good deal of blood at the scene. So they didn't even know about that. Now, of course, the prosecution disagrees that she lost a lot of blood, so they wouldn't even consider that to be relevant or important. But the defense suggested that South Shore just wasn't watching Lindsay Clancy's symptoms or her injuries all that closely. And one of the ways he knows that is a neurosurgeon didn't even show up. Here's the cross-examination. [00:12:57] Speaker 3: As far as the injury to her spine, what kind of injury was it? Do you remember it? [00:13:04] Speaker 4: It was at thoracic level T5, T6. [00:13:06] Speaker 3: And what type of injury was there to the spine? [00:13:10] Speaker 4: The report said that the stability of this, the pattern of it indicated that there was instability of the spine, which is why we conferred with the neurosurgeon. [00:13:19] Speaker 3: Right. And nothing much came out of that either, as far as conferring with the neurosurgeon, right? [00:13:25] Speaker 4: I'm not sure what you mean by nothing much came out of that. [00:13:28] Speaker 3: Well, you didn't show up to come to the hospital, right? [00:13:31] Speaker 4: We didn't. I'm not sure what. [00:13:33] Speaker 3: Okay, the spine was transected at T5, T6, right? [00:13:37] Speaker 4: The person, the team, or rather the input you would need for further commentary on the spine would be a neurosurgery team. I am not a neurosurgeon. I am a general surgeon. [00:13:47] Speaker 3: So you're not aware of the transection. You know what a transection is, don't you? [00:13:52] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:13:53] Speaker 3: Okay. And on your CAT scans or on your pictures that you were describing for the jury with no problem for the DA, did you notice that the spine was transected at T5 and T6? [00:14:04] Speaker 4: There was compression of the bones. I would have to specifically look at the report to see if it used the word transection. Okay. [00:14:10] Speaker 3: How about a thyroid? Did you notice anything about a thyroid? [00:14:13] Speaker 4: It said that there was concern, there was edema at the thyroid, concern for contusion or laceration. [00:14:19] Speaker 3: And that's the extent of your knowledge. You don't know whether or not the thyroid was destroyed or anything, do you? [00:14:25] Speaker 4: Correct. [00:14:26] Speaker 3: Okay. How about her ribs? You notice that some of her ribs were broken. [00:14:31] Speaker 4: I would have to look at her CAT scan report again. [00:14:33] Lindsay: So what the defense is trying to do is argue that these witnesses who are saying Lindsay Clancy's injuries were not that great, and specifically the cuts to her wrist and neck were not that great, they really don't seem to be dialed in to the complete picture of what her injuries actually were. They can't be trusted. That's essentially what they're saying. But there is another battle that connects to the question of whether or not Lindsay Clancy actually was trying to harm herself. There are red-brown stains in the bedroom of the home where Lindsay went out the second floor window and was found on the ground below the window. The defense says the reason for these red-brown stains is that Lindsay was bleeding. Pretty much everybody agrees with that. I don't think anyone disagrees that this is Lindsay's blood there in the room. But the question is, is this a lot of blood or really just not all that much blood? The more stains that can be attributed to Lindsay as blood, then the more the defense wins the argument that there was a lot and that this was a true unaliving attempt. But for some reason that isn't really fully explained, law enforcement tested a lot of these red-brown stains, they double swapped them, but they didn't test all of them. I don't think in the end this is going to be a very big fight. I think everyone's going to agree that this is blood from Lindsay Clancy. And the question is going to be, is this a lot or not a lot? But there is one situation, ironically, that we found out today where the failure to test all of these may come back to bite the prosecution. And that is the stain around the windowsill and the stains on the side of the house. So right after the incident, law enforcement noticed that there were stains there on the windowsill and on the outside of the house, but they didn't test those. [00:16:33] Speaker 3: ... of some of the markings that were directly below the window and directly above where the red-brown stains were found in the snow underneath. [00:16:45] Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct. [00:16:46] Speaker 3: See the red substance, red-brown stain on that window ledge or windowsill? [00:16:51] Speaker 5: Yes, I do. [00:16:52] Speaker 3: You tested that? [00:16:53] Speaker 5: I do not test that specific stain, no. [00:16:56] Speaker ?: Yep. [00:16:57] Speaker 3: So do we know if that was blood? [00:16:59] Speaker 5: No, not at the same. [00:17:01] Lindsay: That's frustrating to the defense, right? Because they believe this shows a lack of adequate investigation. But ironically, like I said, it did come back to bite the prosecution possibly because now the prosecution wants to use the blood on the windowsill as part of its case. They even sent the technician back out to the house in June, five months after all of this occurred, to do testing on the outside of the house and the windowsill. But the problem was that by then it was too late. But the problem was that by then it was too late. I think they did send it for DNA testing. We haven't had the testimony on that yet, so it may still be possible for the prosecution to use this. But so far it doesn't seem to have been very effective. [00:17:46] Speaker 3: And did I hear you correctly that it was five months later that the state police investigators decided that you would get the shingles off the house? [00:17:57] Speaker 5: I don't know when that decision was made, but that was the day that I was requested to go out. [00:18:01] Speaker 3: And then the district attorney showed you the shingles and envelopes. You opened them up and looked at them. And you did a confirmatory test on those? [00:18:11] Speaker 5: I did not. I performed a screening test on each of those stains at the scene. I did not perform a confirmatory test on those stains due to the fact that the red-brown stain color was no longer visible. So potentially the... [00:18:22] Speaker 3: It was degraded because of the weather, right? [00:18:25] Speaker 5: At some point, the red-brown stains appeared darker. They were no longer red-brown. So I thought that the material could be less. So I didn't want to use any additional material for confirmatory testing. [00:18:37] Lindsay: I told you that the defense lawyer seems a little impatient at the pace of the case, that it seems to be dragging a little bit from the prosecution. Here's the second example where it came out. [00:18:48] Speaker 3: As a chemist, you learn how to testify, don't you? [00:18:53] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:18:54] Speaker 3: One of the things they tell you is look at the jury. When the lawyer asks a question, you look at the jury and you answer the question, right? [00:19:01] Speaker 5: That's correct. [00:19:02] Speaker ?: Right. [00:19:02] Speaker 3: So can you just look at me when I ask you just a little bit a question? Would you agree that weather affects, degrades blood if, in fact, it is on an object and allowed to stay outside? [00:19:20] Speaker 6: Absolutely. [00:19:21] Speaker 3: All right. [00:19:22] Lindsay: So he tells her she can look back over at the jury and it's funny how you then see her turn and look back over at the jury. But by now, the jury has been warned. This is all part of her training. She looks at you because she's been told to look at you. And our third example of the defense attorney getting somewhat impatient today. This particular witness who was talking about fingerprints, the defense attorney was pointing out we had a whole lot of talk to just say nothing at all. No fingerprints. [00:19:56] Speaker 3: You told us about your experience. You told us about fingerprints. You told us how you seized items in the course of a search warrant. And then you told us about looking at the photographs that would, and the items that would depict Friction Ridge, if any. But the bottom line is that you didn't get any fingerprints. Correct. And that, you could have just said that, right? Just come on the witness stand and say we didn't get any fingerprints. Sustained. [00:20:23] Lindsay: The judge said, yeah, we're not going to do that. So, the question is, is this hurting the defense attorney that he seems a little impatient? I personally don't think so. I think he has set up from the beginning that he's not going to waste the jury's time. Remember, early on, he went the first four witnesses or so with no questions at all. And I think that was very deliberate. It was a statement to the jury. I'm not going to waste your time. I will show up. I will ask questions when it's important, but I'm not going to just talk. And I think that he has been consistent about that. So, my guess is that the jury will be okay with it. Let me know what you think. And let's go back to that presumed blood on the windowsill and on the outside of the house. Now, why is that so important? Why has that become this pitched battle in the case? Well, it plays into the argument about whether this was really an unaliving attempt by Lindsay Clancy. The defense says Lindsay threw herself out the window, and that's how she hit the ground so hard that she wound up fracturing or trans-setting multiple vertebra. Would you agree that underneath that window would be the two equidistant, if you will, red-brown stains on the shingles, right? [00:21:51] Speaker ?: Correct. [00:21:52] Speaker 3: And that would be an object or something that has blood or red-brown stain on hands or something that was a transfer onto that side of the house, right? Correct. Other areas of the bedroom, for example, counsel showed you the door coming into the bedroom, and there were two drop marks of the red-brown stains. You know, those were never even tested. I'm just saying this is a murder case. It was never tested, right? But you're assuming, failing, that that would be blood, right? [00:22:27] Speaker 6: I don't know whether they were tested, but I deemed those that they were blood in my examination. [00:22:33] Speaker 3: So, that would be, again, drawing an inference would be somewhat conceivable with a person with blood, and their hands leaning on the window. This portion of the hand out here, this portion of the hand on the inside, leaving the transfer, right? [00:22:46] Speaker 6: A hand or some sort of bloody object, yes. All right. [00:22:51] Speaker 3: And the knife also has the transfer that you can see. [00:22:57] Lindsay: The defense attorney is saying, look, it wouldn't be a surprise that blood would be transferred onto the windowsill. After all, we can see that it was transferred onto the knife. This is Lindsay grabbing the windowsill as she goes out, as she pushes herself out. Now, the prosecution wants to argue that Lindsay lightly cut herself and then hung out the window, clinging with her hands, so she could slowly drop to the ground in order not to be hurt. That she never intended to be badly hurt. That was a consequence she didn't expect. Here is what the prosecution says. [00:23:35] Speaker 7: The defense counsel asked you about the redbound stains on the windowsill, the one on the exterior, the interior, and asked if it could be from someone leaning out the window, correct? Correct. Could it also be from someone hanging out the window, holding onto them in those spots? [00:23:50] Lindsay: Correct. The defense thinks, that makes no sense. [00:23:54] Speaker 3: So if somebody was going to climb out the window and hang on the ledge, and then, what, like, do a Spider-Man and go down the side of the shingles? They would leave a smear going all the way down on the shingles, wouldn't they? [00:24:08] Speaker 6: If they came in contact the entire way down, yes, there would be a transfer all the way down. [00:24:13] Lindsay: The final big question for today was, did the Commonwealth botch parts of the evidence collection? Because we've had ongoing argument from Lindsay Clancy's side that the investigation itself was poor. And exhibit A has been that the police failed to find pill bottles that were in the nightstand directly next to the bed that Lindsay moved over underneath the window in order to throw herself out the window. Law enforcement collected a bunch of bottles from the kitchen, but somehow missed these, and they appear to be the ones that Lindsay actually took. The defense has asked several witnesses about this. Anyone who found something in the house or searched in the house, they've said, did you see these bottles right by the bed? They want to point out to the jury, law enforcement missed something as obvious and as important as that, because there wasn't an adequate search. Now, both sides took advantage of this discussion to get into their argument over how many drugs Lindsay Clancy was actually taking. The defense says Lindsay was over prescribed medications, and that is what threw her into postpartum psychosis. But the prosecution says she had a lot of pills prescribed, but she wasn't even taking them. Let's go ahead and take a look at this chart I did. This is the drugs that were found in Patrick's car, all prescribed in the September through early November range. There were many pills in those bottles that were remaining, she hadn't taken them all. Lorazepam, she had 14 of 30 left. Zoloft, 23 of 30. Buspirone, 28 of 30. Hydroxazine, 27 of 30. Clonazepam, we'll go with that. Clonazepam, 11.5 out of 14 pills were left. Fluoxetine, 43 out of 56 were still in the pill bottle. Lorazepam, another bottle of it, 18.5 out of 40 were left. Buspirone, another second bottle of this, 30 out of 30 were left. And trazodone, 22.5 out of 30 were left. Now, the point that the prosecution is trying to make is she's claiming she was given all this medication. But the truth is, she wasn't really taking all that much medication. When you look at how much is left in the bottles, we don't have a full argument yet from the defense about what they're going to do with this. My guess is, and they've already argued that there are multiple bottles of these. Some of those ended up being switched. And therefore, she didn't take the entire bottle because she'd already been moved to yet a different drug. So coming soon, probably tomorrow, DNA testing on the bloodstains, also on the bands that were used in the killings. That is super sad. The judge at one point said that there would be no court in the afternoon, and at another point said that would be used to talk to the attorneys. I thought that might mean the prosecution was going to rest its case and maybe they would have a motion argument. But I don't know. We will find out tomorrow. A special shout out to good friends from Boston and Connecticut, to Jean, Rose, and Katie, and also to Morgan. And please, if you would, hit the like button and subscribe. Would love to have you back for more videos. See you in the next one.